|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Quakers and communion
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's a possibility, Jengie, but it must remain speculation ... as far as I know the Quakers in the instance from the OP who 'turned down' the two Anglican women weren't former Anglicans themselves ...
But I could quite envisage the situation you describe happening if there were people among that Quaker community who'd had bad experiences in Anglican or other sacramental settings.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we'd have to go back a fair bit before we found widespread instances of communing Anglicans who'd been denied access to the Eucharist for various reasons - although that certainly happened in the past for various reasons.
Even when there were no canonical or other impediments, things used to be a lot more strict than they are now, of course.
I was speaking to a 'son of the manse' this morning and he told me that when he was a boy (he's recently retired) at his father's parish the sidesmen would lock the doors after the consecration of the elements and if anyone had come in late and missed the time of confession they wouldn't be admitted to the table ...
--------------------
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 was turned down communion in a CofE at about the age of sixteen!
Actually the problem is not usually closed table but specific excommunication of a person. Congregations with open tables can still use excommunication against specific members of their congregation i.e. those in regular attendance. This happens and there is nearly always emotional responses when it does.
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In terms of the incident in the OP, in the light of the discussion on this thread I'm rather inclined to go with the explanation/s that Doublethink and other Friends have proferred - after all, they are far better qualified to comment from 'the inside' as it were.
What I suspect happened wasn't so much that the women were 'asked to leave' so much as their full integration into the community was hampered to some extent by their continuation of eucharistic practice - and in a way that convinced the elders and others at the Quaker Meeting that they hadn't fully grasped some of the Quaker principles fully.
When this was pointed out to the women, perhaps rather clumsily or with misunderstandings on both sides, they took umbrage and took their bats and balls home and back to Anglicanism.
I certainly don't think there was anything 'sinister' going on and I'm sure no offence was intended.
Anymore than I'd intend any offence to the Religious Society of Friends or individual Quakers if I were to tell them that I'd be happy to attend their meetings now and then if I felt so inclined but it'd be doubtful that I'd ever seek to join myself 'officially' to that body.
That needn't imply any value judgement on my part - although if it were expressed in a particular way it might cause offence or sound like some kind of value judgement.
With the Orthodox - Orthophile as I undoubtedly am - I find the situation more tricky - because we then get into issues over The One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and what is or isn't a valid Eucharist and so on - although, technically speaking, the Orthodox tell me that it's none of their business whether anyone else's Eucharistic practice or celebration is 'valid' or not ... However, in practice, it certainly seems that they do adopt a value judgement position on whose practices are or aren't 'legit' as it were.
--------------------
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
Why were you turned down, Jengie? Because you hadn't been confirmed in the CofE?
I'm speculating here, but my guess would be this would have been pre-1980 or else in a rather 'high' parish.
I've certainly heard it said in Anglo-Catholic parishes that communion is only available for confirmed Anglicans - I heard that when visiting one this summer. And that despite the CofE's 'open communion' policy.
Mind you, as you well know, in some Protestant non-conformist churches questions would be asked of someone who turned up and approached the communion table without their 'credentials' being checked ... 'Are you born again?' or whatever criteria might apply in each particular case.
--------------------
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
You could always come with a "Letter or Recommendation" ... or Baptismal Certificate.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've certainly heard it said in Anglo-Catholic parishes that communion is only available for confirmed Anglicans
I've never heard of this and I've been to numerous Anglo-Catholic parishes. The policy of the Church of England is open table for all Christians in good standing with their own communities. Perhaps some hardline AC's may want to know if guest communicants share their understanding of the Eucharist. But if they attempt to make restrictions on those grounds they are going against the broad church welcome for which many, myself included, praise the C of E.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
I've been to two different AC churches this year and while I did not partake, opting to be blessed instead in both places, I do not believe I would have been denied. I have not be confirmed either.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've certainly heard it said in Anglo-Catholic parishes that communion is only available for confirmed Anglicans - I heard that when visiting one this summer. And that despite the CofE's 'open communion' policy.
AIUI, the policy for C of E members is that you need to be confirmed to receive communion, unless your parish has requested and received permission from the Bishop to admit baptized-but-not-confirmed children.
The policy for visitors is "if you are a regular communicant in your own church, you're welcome here". This includes children who are regular communicants in their own church (C of E or otherwise) and are visiting a parish which doesn't communicate its own children.
In practice, none of the churches I've visited in my travels have ever asked. The "rules" are usually printed in the bulletin or announced in the service, and the assumption is made that any visitor presenting himself for communion is following them.
[ 07. December 2015, 01:54: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
St Sanity's best described as liberal catholic; the policy here is that the table is open to anyone who has been baptised. That means that most Sallies, for example, can take communion, they having been baptised here in their own time.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
St Sanity's best described as liberal catholic; the policy here is that the table is open to anyone who has been baptised. That means that most Sallies, for example, can take communion, they having been baptised here in their own time.
What's a "Sallie", please? Salvation Army?
I've been in Anglican churches for years and have never been challenged as to my status with respect to communion. As it happens, I was baptised and confirmed in the Anglican church - not that I'd be immediately able to prove it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, Sallies are the Salvation Army. Because they (deliberately) don't have ordained clergy, they have to find somewhere for communion; not quite the same need for baptism, but they seem to prefer a traditional church one. They are welcome for both, or for a wedding for that matter. I can't recall any confirmation though.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Yes, Sallies are the Salvation Army. Because they (deliberately) don't have ordained clergy, they have to find somewhere for communion; not quite the same need for baptism, but they seem to prefer a traditional church one. They are welcome for both, or for a wedding for that matter. I can't recall any confirmation though.
Wow. Hard to contemplate the implications of this if widespread practice.
I've never seen anyone who was obviously SA in an Anglican service. It would appear to cut across their long-held traditions if this was the case.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Also, it would appear to be a deliberate falsehood they're committing if they are taking communion in an Anglican church - where the words and text clearly state that only those who have been baptised and regularly take communion in their own churches (wording sometimes slightly varies) are welcome.
I have no disrespect for SA, before anyone says anything. But it is clearly not the case that a Salvation Army member regularly takes communion, or is actually baptised, in their regular church gaff.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've certainly heard it said in Anglo-Catholic parishes that communion is only available for confirmed Anglicans
I've never heard of this and I've been to numerous Anglo-Catholic parishes. The policy of the Church of England is open table for all Christians in good standing with their own communities. Perhaps some hardline AC's may want to know if guest communicants share their understanding of the Eucharist. But if they attempt to make restrictions on those grounds they are going against the broad church welcome for which many, myself included, praise the C of E.
I suspect that may mean that you are quite a lot younger than I am.
Fifty years ago it was implicit, so widely known that it wasn't often mentioned, that you had to be both CofE and confirmed to take communion. In some churches you might also find yourself not allowed to do so if you had been divorced and had remarried or if you had married someone who had.
A friend claims he visited a village church in those days, somewhere remote in the Fens, where there was a notice in the porch that said members of the Church of South India were not admitted to communion.
Who knows whether anyone potentially affected by this prohibition ever came within 25 miles of the place.
Some shipmates may be blessed in not even being able to guess the background to this. It was because the Church of South India was formed by a merger of the local CofE equivalent with various non-episcopal churches. So in the eyes of some Anglo-Catholics, not all the clergy of the Church of South India were validly ordained.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
All of those issues were resolved by the CofE a long time ago, Enoch.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
It is less than forty years since anyone who was not cofirmed Anglican could take communion in the CofE. Yes I am very sure of that, due to the nature of the occassion I was refused it, the Bishop had given special permission for those outside the CofE to receive just his requirements on us meant I could not. I can date it because I know why I was at the local Anglican Church and that means I was in my late teens. So it maybe under thirty years as I would assume open communion did not happen to a year or so after.
However, my point was not about open or closed communion but about the experience of a substantial minority from within many church communities of excommunication. Imagine you belong to a congregation and then for some reason you get a visit from the Vicar or other Church-official (with URC it is likely to be Elder rather than Minister) asking you please to not come forward for communion as you are no longer welcome.
Of course you do not see this on a Sunday and the welcome will still be made so as visitors can come but the people who receive the note are often very unhappy.
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also, it would appear to be a deliberate falsehood they're committing if they are taking communion in an Anglican church - where the words and text clearly state that only those who have been baptised and regularly take communion in their own churches (wording sometimes slightly varies) are welcome.
I have no disrespect for SA, before anyone says anything. But it is clearly not the case that a Salvation Army member regularly takes communion, or is actually baptised, in their regular church gaff.
I don't know where you are posting from, but it is quite proper (and common) here for Sallies to be baptised at an Anglican church, and to receive communion at one also. The requirement here for admission to the table is baptism, not being a regular communicant at one's own church. And for what it's worth, this is not a bit of Sydney Anglicanism, but a regular practice in the Oz Anglican Church.
And as I said before, quite a few Sallies are baptised at Anglican churches.
[ 07. December 2015, 09:12: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I understood your general point, Jengie.
As it happens, I was baptised/christened in the Church in Wales but haven't been confirmed. I regularly receive communion in Anglican churches, but if I were to visit one where I felt the absence of confirmation might cause impediment/embarrassment I wouldn't present myself to receive communion unless I'd first checked it out with the priest-in-charge or some duly appointed officer/minister there.
At the AC parish I visited in South Wales in the summer I didn't received communion, partly because the visiting priest (the incumbent as on holiday) said that it was reserved for confirmed Anglicans or those who'd been confirmed in other churches ...
So I didn't receive - and to be honest I'm not sure I would have done if this stricture hadn't been articulated - not because I objected, particularly, but because I only tend to 'receive' after due reflection and preparation and I didn't feel at all prepared.
As far as I can gather, open communion was introduced in 1980 within the CofE. I only say that because when I started attending church services after some years of non-attendance - following my 'born again' conversion experience in 1981 - I asked in Anglican churches I visited whether I'd be allowed to take communion as I hadn't been confirmed and the answer was, 'Yes, because we changed the rules recently ...'
As various Shipmates have said, it's very rare for anyone to check ... if a worshipper of the Stripy Flying Jelly Monster of Planet Zorg went to the communion rail at your average parish church this coming Sunday no questions would be asked.
I could have gone up for communion at the AC parish I mentioned and they'd have been none the wiser. Not that I'd do that, of course.
--------------------
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
Interesting, here in the UK I think it'd be pretty rare for Salvationists to take their children to the Anglicans for baptism. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens occasionally, but I suspect it would be unusual.
Mudfrog would be better able to comment though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
There was a case reported in local press in East Sussex some time ago of two elderly women turned away at the rail by a new village vicar. He always claimed the reason to be one he couldn't give publicly, and nor did they (if they knew - they talked about their hurt). He claimed he had authority from the bishop, who also kept silent (Lewes or Chichester?). The whole thing left a very nasty taste, and was never resolved in the press. One of them died (probably both by now, but that was the last I heard), but they never went anywhere else (which I would have done).
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm in England. As per Canon B15A Admission to Communion (1972), the first category of persons which should be accepted for Holy Communion is "communicant members of Other Churches".
I don't know exactly what would happen if someone was known to be in quote unquote "bad standing" with their church, but again I've never heard anyone being questioned as to the standing before being offered Holy Communion.
On that, I think the point Jengie jon is making is different to the one Enoch is making. If one has been ex-communicated by a church, it still appears possible to exclude them from Anglican Holy Communion. But the point about accepting members from the Church of South India was resolved in the 1960s.
The paragraph also allows baptised people authorised by the General Synod, I don't know what this includes exactly.
I therefore still think it'd be a stretch for members of the Salvation Army to be regular communicants in an Anglican church in England when their own tradition does not practice it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
AIUI, the Sallies do not practise any of the sacraments. It would be quite in order for a member to be authorised under the Marriage Act to perform weddings, but I can't say if any have been or not. In any event, there is a very large number of civil celebrants who could perform a wedding at a meeting hall, park or wherever. Or arrangements could be made at a nearby church for the local rector/minister to perform the service.
Our numbers at Easter and Christmas are swollen by SA members attending to receive communion, and from what I hear we're not alone in that.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm sorry to be an arse, but as far as I can see, the relevant Canon for the Sydney Diocese has very similar wording. As per section 1.b.ii, the person needs to be a communicant of their church.
Section c allows other classes of people, but I'd be surprised if this included members of the Salvation Army.
I am not claiming any kind of knowledge of the Australian Anglican church, but I'd be very surprised if there are any churches in the Anglican communion which "officially" allow the sacrament of Holy Communion to be distributed to members of other churches who do not themselves practice it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I can only speak of the practice here, in Sydney/Canberra/Goulburn/Newcastle/Riverina. I have not been to services in Armidale or Bathurst for quite a few years and really cannot remember. The NSW practice I've referred to is followed in churches I have attended in Melbourne and Bendigo dioceses. Again, I do not speak of whatever ordinances are in force there.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not out either to defend or criticise the CofE ... but for the incident you mention in East Sussex to have reached the press at all - even the local press - indicates how unusual this sort of thing is ...
As for why the elderly women in the case didn't go anywhere else - who knows why that might have been? Perhaps they didn't have transport and the local parish church was their only option, perhaps they thought that Anglicanism was the only option - despite their being barred - for whatever reason - from the communion rail.
Who knows?
I agree with Jengie that this sort of refusal invariably causes offence - but the incident in the OP - two former Anglican women being denied full membership of the Religious Society of Friends ostensibly for persisting in receiving the Eucharist in Anglican churches didn't make the papers ...
And why should it?
The East Sussex incident probably only made the papers because:
- It's rare.
- It's controversial and we all like to read about controversy.
- It caused upset, understandably so.
In the final analysis, churches and religious communities of all kinds can be pretty bloody wierd places. I well remember an RC priest - who loved monasticism - telling me just how stark-staring bonkers most monasteries are as institutions and how crazy most of their inmates end up ...
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
My question in the OP wasn't really meant to kick-off a debate about the rights/wrongs and ins and outs of open or closed communion - although I can see how that follows as a corollary - but to seek to understand more of the Quaker position - with particular reference to an alleged incident I'd heard of.
FWIW, the responses from the various Friends on this thread have helped me gain some kind of insight into that and whilst none of us can be 100% what was going on in the reported incident in the OP - as none of us here were directly involved and can only rely on a third-party report at several removes - we can only surmise.
My impression is that what Doublethink and other Friends have described represents an accurate take on these matters vis a vis the Quaker position and that the women in the OP incident wanted their cake and eat it ...
I'm not criticising them for that, nor the Quaker elders and congregation either -- as ever, I am cursed with the ability to see both sides ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) .
I'm the sort of bloke that if I ever changed my religious abode/allegiance in some way would be tempted to keep a foot in both camps - or as many camps as I felt feasible in some kind of spiritual Twister game ...
I'm sure if I ever became a Roman Catholic I'd bob back to CofE services every now and again, or if I were a Quaker I'd nip out for a liturgical fix of some kind ...
The extent to which that sort of thing is or isn't acceptable is going to vary. Nobody minded when I was a member of a Baptist church if I helped introduce some more liturgical elements or occasionally worshipped at Anglican or other churches ...
But they would have minded had I denounced credo-baptism or insisted on forms of words that implied the Real Presence in the Eucharist, say. As it was, I was always seen as a closet Anglican - or even a Catholic ...
During one house-group discussion about communion the house-group leader, a former RC, was staggered to hear my more 'developed' views on communion which reminded him of his RC childhood. Another former Anglican there, who regularly participated in both Anglican and Baptist services - came to my defence. Intriguingly, this same house-group leader later asked me to use a section of the Roman Missal at a communion service. No-one noticed. The sky did not fall in.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The point is, of course, is that however loosely or tightly we ratchet things up to create frameworks and boundaries, we all have frameworks and boundaries ... the Religious Society of Friends have theirs, everyone else has their own too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
All of those issues were resolved by the CofE a long time ago, Enoch.
I'm aware of that Mr Cheesy. I was describing how things were. Fifty years ago take us to 1965.
Tangent Alert
"The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there" comes from L. P. Hartley's The Go-Between. Something one becomes increasingly conscious of is that the older one gets, the more one is an immigrant from a country which is completely unfamiliar, not-understood and not interesting to those who are a generation or two younger. It is really annoying to hear a person who is an adult, and should be old enough to know better, condemning past ages, whether recent or distant, for not thinking as he or she thinks.
"It is outrageous that nobody did anything about xxxx, in 1965, or for that matter 1765".
Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, but people saw things differently then. They had different priorities. They lived within different parameters. Even as recently as 1970, some of the things people get really steamed up about now, nobody had thought of.
Likewise, there are things that happen now, which people assume have to be accepted, which would appal someone in 1965. Indeed, some things that I accept now, which I could not have imagined accepting in 1965.
Likewise also, none of us know what will be the issues on which opinion will have changed, or that people will be arguing about - if any of us are still here - in 2065, what bright young intellectuals will condemn us for being blind to.
End of Tangent
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I know from what Mudfrog, a Salvation Army minister, has posted previously, that they take a different view from the Quakers, and although not celebrating the Eucharist themselves, they do not view wanting to receive it regularly as being inconsistent with Salvation Army membership.
My previous (Anglican) church had a couple of Salvation army officers who used to come, in uniform, to receive the eucharist about once a month. They had checked with the vicar who was quite happy with the arrangement. I would describe that church as charismatic, not catholic but with quite a high view of the sacraments.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
"The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there" comes from L. P. Hartley's The Go-Between. Something one becomes increasingly conscious of is that the older one gets, the more one is an immigrant from a country which is completely unfamiliar, not-understood and not interesting to those who are a generation or two younger. It is really annoying to hear a person who is an adult, and should be old enough to know better, condemning past ages, whether recent or distant, for not thinking as he or she thinks.
I'm sorry, was that remark directed at me? I was aware that the communion practices of the CofE had changed in the period since 1950, others apparently were not aware.
The fact that one is unaware is not "condemning past ages", it is perfectly consistent that someone could have attended regularly Anglican church services for 30 or 40 years without being aware that this was an issue.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I know from what Mudfrog, a Salvation Army minister, has posted previously, that they take a different view from the Quakers, and although not celebrating the Eucharist themselves, they do not view wanting to receive it regularly as being inconsistent with Salvation Army membership.
Well that is very interesting if it is indeed the official position of the SA. I wonder if there has been any kind of discussion with the Anglican structure about the Canon I mentioned before and the status of SA members going forward for the sacrament.
quote:
My previous (Anglican) church had a couple of Salvation army officers who used to come, in uniform, to receive the eucharist about once a month. They had checked with the vicar who was quite happy with the arrangement. I would describe that church as charismatic, not catholic but with quite a high view of the sacraments.
Well, that's very interesting. I wonder how far this practice goes.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
I know I'm coming very late to this thread (and will try not to repeat what other Friends have already said).
Generally speaking, I don't like to consider something factual when it comes through informal channels (....someone told me that someone he/she knew experienced.....). There is too much room for personal interpretation to color the event.
I'm sorry that Gamaliel has detected some smugness amoung Friends (even a mild version). It is not a pleasant spiritual tone to take for anyone of any religious affiliation. But I have found examples of it in a variety of faiths. Organized religion is a humanly constructed thing, subject to human foibles, not the least of which is a desire to believe that one's own way contains more of what God wants than someone else's way.
As for "asking them to leave" because they take communion elsewhere. . . .It's possible that a group of people who are intolerant have found each other and support each other's intolerance. Intolenrance is not a good thing at all and certainly not limited to Friends.
It's possible that the asking was not phrased very carefully. And this may have led to a misunderstanding. Or the misunderstanding may have arisen anyway.
We may never know how this event unfolded. It does not seem to be in keeping with the Quaker way, and I would encourage folks not to extrapolate any world-wide Quaker feeling on the matter from this example.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Let me make it very clear I have known of (met) a church warden and a full Quaker member (actually organiser, or whatever the role is called*, of the meeting). So taking communion in the CofE and being a full Quaker member are not mutually exclusive.
Jengie
*Sorry I do know, I just cannot recall.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just a brief comment on our demarcation issues in view of one of the above comments.
Closed non-communion is not a Dead Horse, but closed communion is.
So we would seem to have a bit of a paradox. if you wanted to continue this discussion onto the general grounds of whether regular participation in communion is proper to members of the Salvation Army or a Quaker meeting, you can do so here.
But if you want to consider closed communion as a spin-off topic, it's best to head for Dead Horses.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Let me make it very clear I have known of (met) a church warden and a full Quaker member (actually organiser, or whatever the role is called*, of the meeting). So taking communion in the CofE and being a full Quaker member are not mutually exclusive.
Jengie
*Sorry I do know, I just cannot recall.
The term is Clerk, Jengie. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I think from your response right after my post that I may have led you to believe I was referring to you when I posted about information from informal channels. I was referring to the situation related in the OP, and I should have made that clear.
sabine
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point is, of course, is that however loosely or tightly we ratchet things up to create frameworks and boundaries, we all have frameworks and boundaries ... the Religious Society of Friends have theirs, everyone else has their own too.
What disappoints me most is that I thought the Friends had few frameworks and boundries, and were therefore suitable for people who come into the "spiritual but not religious" category. As someone who doesn't believe that salvation is restricted to those who believe certain tenets or obey certain church rules, my previous view of the Friends as tolerant and open has taken a bashing.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm sorry if that's the impression you've received PaulTH but it may reassure Sabine and other Friends to hear that what I reported - and yes, it was second-hand and unverifiable - hasn't given me that impression at all.
I no more expect perfection from the Religious Society of Friends than I do from any other religious body - we're all human beings.
I was simply interested on what the Friends' 'take' would be over an issue of this kind - I'm not out to denigrate them in any way or say, 'Aha! Look at these Quakers ... for all their principles they're no better than the rest of us!'
No, nothing was further from my mind.
I've already said that I'm happy to go along with the possible explanations that Doublethink and other Friends have put forward on this thread. And I'm grateful to them for their responses.
Even if that particular Friends Meeting House was way out of order or way out of line (and I'm not sure they were, it sounds more like a misunderstanding on one side or t'other or both) I prefer to judge any religious group by its best points, not it's worst (to channel Under Milk Wood's Rev Eli Jenkins for a moment) ...
On the smugness thing, we're all guilty of that.
I certainly don't think the Quakers are any more smug than any other group which has a distinctive 'take' on things. The fact that I've detected a whiff of it probably means I'm guilty of it myself - because that's how I recognise it when I sniff it ... it's the old fox never smelling its own farts thing.
I don't think there's any danger of people here extrapolating any 'world-wide Quaker feeling on the matter from this example.'
FWIW I certainly haven't picked up that impression.
The 'worst' I can say about the Quakers from my own direct experience of them is that they can have a rather quaint - and loveable - tendency to be pernickety about certain things. I attended a service at my nearest Quaker Meeting House once and was amused that they had a bit of a mild argument afterwards about the appropriateness of bringing chocolate biscuits for the after-service tea/coffee time instead of fruit or something suitably wholesome ...
Thinking about it, some of the radical young Quakers I met at university could be scathing about some of the other Christian groups on campus at times ... but with some reason.
I've also heard it said - and again, this is second-hand and impressionistic - that Quakers can sometimes be a bit tetchy on ecumenical/inter-church occasions. I heard of one Quaker elder who cut up rough at a Churches Together event because the hymns chosen had a Trinitarian element ...
When it was pointed out to him that everyone else there were actually Trinitarian that wasn't good enough - the hymns had to replaced with some that would admit of no explicit Trinitarian interpretation ...
But again - that's hearsay and I'm sure there could be any number of stories told by Friends of crass or inappropriate behaviour/comments by representatives of other groups.
I'm not getting into 'this group is better than that group' territory - that's not my intention at all.
--------------------
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
Sorry to double-post but I really can't see why the following should be the impression taken away by readers of this thread:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
]What disappoints me most is that I thought the Friends had few frameworks and boundries, and were therefore suitable for people who come into the "spiritual but not religious" category. As someone who doesn't believe that salvation is restricted to those who believe certain tenets or obey certain church rules, my previous view of the Friends as tolerant and open has taken a bashing.
For a kick-off, whatever the ins and outs of the incident reported in the OP there's never been any suggestion that the Friends involved felt that anyone's salvation was impaired or jeopardised in any way.
Also, as has been said plenty of times by Friends and others on this thread, the Quakers are certainly open to people in the 'spiritual but not religious' category.
I suspect in this particular instance they'd have been open to the two women continuing to attend as fellow-travellers as it were - but not as fully-fledged Friends as it were as their insistence on taking communion regularly with the Anglicans may have been understood as a reliance on outward means and rituals ... which is a position that isn't in keeping with Quaker principles.
We may or may not like that, but there it is.
I don't see how it makes the Quakers 'intolerant' particularly. What they may have been saying was that the two women hadn't quite 'got' the Quaker way yet.
Our respective mileage will vary. The first time I attended an Orthodox Liturgy I thought I'd be offended by not being allowed to take communion. In the event, I wasn't offended in the least - particularly as they offer visitors the antidoron - or pre-consecrated bread.
In the same way, I'm not offended by not being able to receive communion in an RC setting. If I were to do so I'd have to accept their particular take on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. If I don't accept that then I've really got no 'right' to expect them to welcome me to their table - as hospitable as they might be otherwise.
Anyhow, this is getting into Dead Horse territory so I'll pull back on the reins if I haven't crossed the line already ...
At any rate, as someone's mentioned, Terry Waite describes himself as a Quaker Anglican. Whether he continues to receive communion in Anglican churches, I have no idea.
I'm happy with the explanations I've received from the Friends on this thread. I see no reason to be disappointed with the Friends in any way, shape or form - they are acting in accordance with their principles. I suspect that in the incident reported in the OP there was some misunderstanding and/or at worst, the Quaker position may have been put forward in a way which the women interpreted as a rebuff.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point is, of course, is that however loosely or tightly we ratchet things up to create frameworks and boundaries, we all have frameworks and boundaries ... the Religious Society of Friends have theirs, everyone else has their own too.
What disappoints me most is that I thought the Friends had few frameworks and boundries, and were therefore suitable for people who come into the "spiritual but not religious" category. As someone who doesn't believe that salvation is restricted to those who believe certain tenets or obey certain church rules, my previous view of the Friends as tolerant and open has taken a bashing.
Firstly, Quakers vary on the theological liberal-conservative axis - almost all British Quakers are liberal but this is not the case universally and it is not an inherent part of Quakerdom. Most Quakers nowadays are in Kenya, and many if not most of those will be more conservative Quakers and more in line with orthodox Nonconformism generally.
However, even for liberal British Quakers - why does 'suitable for spiritual but not religious people' mean lacking in frameworks and boundaries? It just means different ones. Aside from the fact that this example actually deals with practising Christians anyway, that does not mean Quakers think non-Quakers are outside salvation but that Quakerdom means something distinctive with boundaries preserving that distinction. Totally lacking in any kind of definition would mean that 'Quaker' wouldn't really mean anything at all. It is entirely reasonable for full Friendship to be dependent on really 'getting' it theologically, and I don't think this has anything at all to do with outsider status or not. There are many agnostic Friends for whom Quaker theology is clearly not a barrier to membership, and many more religious Friends also - I don't think getting it or not getting it is dependent on theism levels. It's like music - some people are naturally talented and can play instinctively, some people study for years and become talented through hard work, some people just cannot become musical no matter how hard they try. It isn't unreasonable to not include the latter group in a musicians' union, but it also isn't saying that they are inferior people!
I don't understand the disappointment in a denomination wanting some kind of unifying theology amongst its members. That seems much more reasonable than having no expectations whatsoever - the Quakers after all are a religious organisation, not a social club.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I know from what Mudfrog, a Salvation Army minister, has posted previously, that they take a different view from the Quakers, and although not celebrating the Eucharist themselves, they do not view wanting to receive it regularly as being inconsistent with Salvation Army membership.
Well that is very interesting if it is indeed the official position of the SA. I wonder if there has been any kind of discussion with the Anglican structure about the Canon I mentioned before and the status of SA members going forward for the sacrament.
quote:
My previous (Anglican) church had a couple of Salvation army officers who used to come, in uniform, to receive the eucharist about once a month. They had checked with the vicar who was quite happy with the arrangement. I would describe that church as charismatic, not catholic but with quite a high view of the sacraments.
Well, that's very interesting. I wonder how far this practice goes.
From what Mudfrog has said and from my impression of the SA generally, it is more usual for members to attend Communion at Baptist or other Nonconformist churches where an open table is the norm - but I suspect this depends on the local church landscape. At my old conservative evangelical Anglican church, I was admitted to Communion before baptism (admittedly a matter of months) so I cannot imagine any objection to an SA officer communing.
Also of course, many SA members were raised and baptised in other denominations before joining the SA so presumably there is no Canonical barrier for them.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
At my old conservative evangelical Anglican church, I was admitted to Communion before baptism (admittedly a matter of months) so I cannot imagine any objection to an SA officer communing.
Before baptism? I just fell off my chair, although I probably shouldn't be surprised. There's a snarky comment about some of our evo brethren in there, somewhere.
(Our (TEC) church did once have a surprise baptism on "first communion" day.)
quote:
Also of course, many SA members were raised and baptised in other denominations before joining the SA so presumably there is no Canonical barrier for them.
AFAIK, the C of E requirement is still "communicant member of your church" rather than merely "baptized", which is a challenge when your church doesn't do communion.
I don't think, however, that there's a bar on a member of the SA being confirmed in the C of E: I don't see a reason why one couldn't be a member of both. Perhaps Mudfrog could offer a comment here?
I find it difficult to understand why someone who was not a regular communicant would want to take communion when away from his normal place of worship. The only way that makes sense to me is if he was trying to "fit in" and go along with whatever people were doing in the church he was visiting.
That's not what seems to be described here, though - what I'm hearing here is an SA officer who feels the need for the sacrament, and goes elsewhere to get it, rather than a guest who is just trying to follow local custom.
My understanding of the SA (Mudfrog, correct me!) is that it's fine to take communion, but that feeling as though you required communion might be missing the mark.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Greetings Comrades!
This following statement is the latest official Salvation Army statement on Holy Communion. There is a similar one on baptism but it's not relevant here:
Statement on Holy Communion
After full and careful consideration of The Salvation Army's understanding of, and approach to, the sacrament of Holy Communion, the International Spiritual Life Commission sets out the following points:
1. God's grace is freely and readily accessible to all people at all times and in all places.
2. No particular outward observance is necessary to inward grace.
3. The Salvation Army believes that unity of the Spirit exists within diversity and rejoices in the freedom of the Spirit in expressions of worship.
4. When Salvationists attend other Christian gatherings in which a form of Holy Communion is included, they may partake if they choose to do so and if the host Church allows.
5. Christ is the one true Sacrament, and sacramental living - Christ living in us and through us- is at the heart of Christian holiness and discipleship.
6. Throughout its history The Salvation Army has kept Christ's atoning sacrifice at the center of its corporate worship.
7. The Salvation Army rejoices in its freedom to celebrate Christ's real presence at all meals and in all meetings, and in its opportunity to explore in life together the significance of the simple meals shared by Jesus and his friends and by the first Christians.
8. Salvationists are encouraged to use the love feast and develop creative means of hallowing meals in home and corps with remembrance of the Lord's sacrificial love.
9. The Salvation Army encourages the development of resources for fellowship meals, which will vary according to culture, without ritualizing particular words or actions.
10. In accordance with normal Salvation Army practice, such remembrances and celebrations, where observed, will not become established rituals, nor will frequency be prescribed.
A Salvationist cannot be confirmed in the Church of England.
A Salvationist may be baptised by a minister from another denomination - it will usually be Baptist or Pentecostal.
A Salvation Army officer (me) is authorised to conduct weddings.
[ 07. December 2015, 23:33: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks Mudfrog
That strikes me as very clear. I suppose some may make an assumption of "occasional but not regular" in guideline 4, but the words themselves do not impose that restriction directly. It would seem to be a matter of individual conscience, subject to normal practice in the denomination(s) being visited. And that is what I would expect.
And indeed the general nonconformist position doesn't really require anything else. The 1 Cor 11 guideline is that, in any inappropriate participation, we may "eat and drink judgment on ourselves". That'll do for me.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
In my previous appointment the SA congregation shared a Methodist church because we had to abandon our old Temple. We had our own morning worship but shared the evening service with the Methodist congregation. I led and preached on alternate Sunday evenings. The third Sunday evening was always communion and many Salvationists went to the communion rail on every occasion to partake. I went most months but not all.
I was baptised in a Baptist church at 18.
My wife was baptised with a number of young adults from our SA youth group at another Baptist Church a few years later. They were all immersed wearing white/light coloured clothing and then after getting dried, they all came back into the church for the rest of the service in their SA uniforms.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks Mudfrog - the latest SA statement contained no surprises as far as I'm concerned - it's inline with explanations you've given here before - but it was interesting to see it laid out clearly and in one place, as it were, rather than in and amongst a series of responses in a debate/discussion context.
On the Quaker thing, yes, I agree with what Pomona's said.
I don't find anything 'disappointing' in the Quaker position - it's in line with the thrust of their theology/spirituality ...
I'm not about to join the Friends any time soon, but if, for some reason, I started attending Quaker meetings regularly and wanted to become more formally involved I'd expect the eucharistic issue to come up at some point. I wouldn't be 'disappointed' if they expressed the view that they don't see the 'need' for it in any definitive kind of way - because I know that's what their position is.
Similarly, if I wanted to join the Salvation Army I'd accept their discipline and modus-operandi - otherwise, what would be the point of my joining?
I imagine there are 'fellow travellers' among the SA who mightn't apply for formal membership but who are very welcome to attend and get involved.
Equally, with those churches which practice closed-communion - those of us who practice open communion might not like it - but that's the way they operate. There'd be no point in complaining about it if one were to become RC, say, or Orthodox as you'd know already that that was part of the package.
In a similar way, you wouldn't attend a Pentecostal church if you were a full-on cessationist, or a Unitarian church if you were avowedly Trinitarian.
Whatever our views on sacraments/ordinances and so on, there's a need for charity in all things here - the respecting of particular beliefs and stand-points even if we don't necessarily share them ourselves.
Whatever the ins and outs of the incident reported in the OP, I've never understood it to imply any impression that the apparently 'rejected' former Anglican ladies were impaired in their spirituality or salvation or anything of that kind.
One could read some kind of implicit value-judgement into it if one were so inclined - 'you're immature in your faith because you're still clinging to outward forms ... your understanding is imperfect, unlike ours,' but I doubt that's what the intention/motivation was.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The 'latest position' is actually from 1999. It's our current position.
On a parallel matter, I have been in meetings attended by members of the Society of Friends where said Friends became slightly unfriendly and less peace-loving when it came to people who disagreed with their views on the renewal of Trident and (at the time) Global warming.
I wonder whether my experience, which may of course be unique, might go a little way to illustrating the notion that liberal-minded people who espouse toleration can often appear to be exactly the opposite?
[ 08. December 2015, 17:57: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I'm not sure that this is especially on-topic, but it is surely not hard to understand that those who believe that such things would wipe out humanity would be less likely to accept disagreement as 'just another view'? Of course the more serious an issue is, the less likely disagreement will be accepted.
I think the mistake you make is, like PaulTH upthread, to assume that liberalism means no boundaries whatsoever and that it is defined by 'tolerance'. Quakers, as much as they may protest otherwise, do have key beliefs that could be considered a doctrine. Nuclear weapons and the deliberate destruction of the environment are things they can be reliably assumed to oppose, at least in the UK, and it is part of their view on that of God in everyone - it's not dissimilar to the RC stance on these issues in terms of the value of humanity and the Earth. Quakerism has defined beliefs and it is reasonable for them to hold to them. How would you react to being told that teetotalism is intolerant of the SA? It would be a deeply silly statement to make, and suggesting that Quaker opposition to genocide (which is what nuclear weapons and environmental destruction boils down to for them) is also intolerant is equally silly.
The issue here is not Quaker 'intolerance' but ignorance of the inner workings of Quaker theology. As a non-Quaker I do think they don't always help themselves in this aspect.
It is, of course, worth pointing out that Quaker views on these issues are shared by many mainstream churches.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
My point was not the particular issue but that it is another example of how this particular group (possibly uniquely) view other opinions. They didn't like people taking the eucharist either, because they themselves didn't believe in it.
You will not find many Salvationists being hostile to those who choose to drink alcohol. We hold to our position without censuring others.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
That is surely rather optimistic? SA members are, after all, still human! Smugness over teetotalism is not so far removed from smugness over pacifism or smugness over credobaptism or whatever else Christians get smug about. I don't think that's a failing of any denomination, unfortunately I think it's just human nature.
I have been on the receiving end of Quaker smugness on other things or what I felt was smugness - but it probably wasn't intended that way. Likewise, I'm sure many SA members might be felt to be smug or dismissive of other practices when it wasn't intended. I think 'there but for the grace of God go I' is worth keeping in mind on all sides. Everyone thinks their way is the better way for some reason, or they wouldn't be doing it.
I do take your point over perceived 'liberal' or 'tolerant' spaces/groups having boundaries or moments of intolerance that outsiders perhaps don't expect, but I think it's often due to goalposts shifting along the conservative/MOTR/liberal axis and expectations changing. I think people are surprised that there are principles behind liberalism! It's the MOTR that is losing a distinctive voice. This isn't a criticism of the MOTR, I think it has a lot of strengths but I think it suffers from an image problem.
I wonder if the growth of neo-orthodoxy will change anything - I feel like post-evangelicalism is challenging to traditional liberal denominations such as the Quakers, although I think part of that is unfortunately down to much of post-evangelicalism being style over substance.
I know we rarely see eye to eye Mudfrog, but I certainly am not afraid of criticising 'my side' (although I am not a Quaker).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Without knowing the details, I rather doubt that censure or hostility came into it. It's not a question of disapproving of someone taking communion if that's something they feel they need to do; it's merely a question of discerning whether someone shares Quaker beliefs at a deep enough level to be appropriate for membership.
Being a member, by the way, is not really analogous to being a communicant of the CoE or other church--it isn't held to confer any spiritual grace, we don't believe that the Inward Light is an exclusive possession of the RSOF, or that you have to be in a Friends meeting to receive it (from the very beginning, Friends rejected the very idea of excommunication as unscriptural), or that only members are welcome to attend. The only practical difference between being a long-time attender (some people are attenders for decades without ever becoming members) and a member is that there are some offices (clerk of the meeting, for example) that only members can fill and some committees that only members can serve on, and only members can fully participate in meeting for business (attenders can be present, but when it comes to determining the sense of the meeting, they don't count).
The process for membership in most meetings (it's handled at the local monthly meeting level) is that one writes a letter to the meeting stating that you share Friends' beliefs and wish to become a member, and to take on the responsibilities of membership (which are generally considered to include committee service as well as financial support to the extent one is able). Many meetings have classes for newcomers to learn about Friends' beliefs and history, and it's often recommended that people take one before applying for membership. A clearness committee is formed (a subcommittee of the membership committee), which meets with the applicant a couple of times to talk about their decision and to discern whether they really understand Quaker principles and are really in harmony with them. The clearness committee makes a recommendation to the monthly meeting for business, which makes the final decision (by consensus, as everything is decided in the RSOF). Saying no doesn't mean we think you're a bad person, or that you're not saved, or that you shouldn't come to meeting any more, or anything like that--it just means that you're not ready to be a member yet. Unfortunately, it can be hard for people to hear that without hurt feelings, no matter how it is expressed.
Disagreements about matters of peace and social justice can get rather intense, in that typically passive-aggressive Quaker way, but that's really a different issue.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Smugness over teetotalism is not so far removed from smugness over pacifism or smugness over credobaptism or whatever else Christians get smug about
Ah! Smugness and Christianity. When I wrote above about "spiritual but not religious" there are many people who feel an inner sense of connection with some power greater than themselves, but who find it difficult to assent to a creed. And why should they? there are substantial differences between what different Christian groups believe. And even more differences from what the other world religions believe. It's perfectly plausible to see religions as pathways up the mountain. Starting from different places which are full of cultural overlays. But all arriving ultimately in the same place at the summit of the mountain. I once thought that the Quaker emphasis on the Inner Light without creeds or sacraments could be perfect for people drawn to the flame of existence. The more restrictions it puts on its members, the less attractive it becomes for anyone seeking the source of the light.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
