Thread: Quakers and communion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029578
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
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"...
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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]

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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
[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. ]
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tree Bee (# 4033) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
There ia also a difference between seeing communion as an enhancement of your spiritual life, and seeing it as essential to your spiritual life.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
I guess a "fundamental difference in belief" that can make or break membership and a "creed" are in my ears shades of nuance.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes - even a building which "doesn't say anything" - and there are plenty of Nonconformist churches like that! - is still saying something.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Exclusive Brethren Meeting houses used to have no windows as a statement of something.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
And here is another (Saltaire URC).

Not to mention Union Chapel, Islington.

[ 06. December 2015, 13:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
And don't I know it ...
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In typical Gamalien (chameleon?) fashion I'm going to trot out the old mantra that it's a both/and not either/or thing ... [Big Grin] [Biased]

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 ...
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
You could always come with a "Letter or Recommendation" ... or Baptismal Certificate.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Assuming you has one ...
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
All of those issues were resolved by the CofE a long time ago, Enoch.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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]

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] [Razz] .

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 [Biased] ...

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]

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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
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] 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
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...

[Biased]

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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Right I think something needs saying. Quakers have kept the old Nonconformist notion of membership where membership is really only for the keenies i.e. those so involved in the group that they hold office.

The result can be that the majority of regular attendees are not actually members. Sometimes they do not even realise they are not members.

Jengie.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
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.
But you have completely missed the point of everything myself, Gamaliel and Timothy have written. How could Quakerism sustain itself if it was a theological/spiritual free-for-all? It has to have some beliefs - the interpretation of those beliefs may vary, but without them what's the point of Quakerism having any distinctives? And as has been pointed out, there is nothing stopping non-members from attending meetings. As I said, the RSOF is a religious society, ultimately. I don't see what your comments have to do with my comment that you posted, because smugness over 'right beliefs' happens in any belief system and not necessarily religious ones - vegetarians, people doing a paleo diet, humanists, what have you. I was simply illustrating that it's what humans do, not saying anything about Quakerism.

Also the non-members in question in the opening post are Anglicans - hardly likely to object to creeds. I disagree with the premise that the fewer boundaries, the more appealing the Quakers would be. People want their denomination to have something distinctive about it, not just a social group. Indeed, I think a 'fierce' sort of Quakerism going back to its radical roots would do it the world of good, rather than the woollyness people associate with it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Also probably worth highlighting that once someone is a member of the Quaker meeting, they can represent it in the way that a minister represents other church denominations.

So understandably there might be things one has to agree to.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's all relative, PaulTh.

The Quakers don't put restrictions on members over issues of alcohol or tobacco, sexual orientation and so on.

The worst I can say about them is what they acknowledge themselves - that they can take a passive-aggressive approach and sometimes can come over as if they disapprove of other people's practices - which was something that got them into trouble in their early days - refusing to doff their hats or interrupting services in parish churches by shouting, 'Come down, hireling!'

In that, they're no different to any other group. I've come across Baptists who're holier-than-thou in their attitudes towards Anglicans, Anglicans who're sniffy towards non-conformists, Orthodox who are sniffy towards everyone ...

I can see what Mudfrog is getting at - it can sound as if they're saying, 'We don't see any point in the Eucharist so we don't understand why you do ...'

But it's more a case of of them considering it ok for anyone else - provided they don't expect them to go along with it.

I can see that the SA position is different to the Quaker one on this issue but it too can easily be misconstrued.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Revspeak alert
Is being a Quaker more belief in a particular Praxis than belief in a set of doctrines?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
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.
Most people call it anger and/or division. It's one of the less admirable traits of RSOF that they use soem words in rather different ways than the rest of us in order to demomnstrate that they are true to their precepts. Mind you, what's their "approach" if it isn't a creed?

In the UK RSOF are Registered Charities. There's npow a much tighter prescriptive regime around such registration (given the benefits of it - ie no tax, able to claim gift aid) and the Charities Commission are increasingly putting charities to task on whether the aims of the charity are being met. Could Quakers' prove their religious as opposed to their spiritual delivery in this way?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most people call it anger and/or division. It's one of the less admirable traits of RSOF that they use soem words in rather different ways than the rest of us in order to demomnstrate that they are true to their precepts. Mind you, what's their "approach" if it isn't a creed?

Fairly obviously, it depends on your definition of the term "creed". If you insist that "we have no creed" is itself a creed, then there isn't much to argue with.

But the root of Quakerism is not that it is undogmatic - it is just at odds with the dominant understanding of Christian faith which depends on historic assertions of belief.

Fox, Penn and the others were very sure that they were right and that their opponents were wrong. They didn't go in for this idea that all beliefs were worthy of respect - and used pretty fruity language about the destination of those who frequented the steeple-houses.

Such sentiments are obviously part of history (though to be fair, the religious establishment also made some pretty wild statements and persisted in discriminated against Quakers for a long time) and the dominant Quaker mentality today is non-condemnatory.

But in a strict sense they are non-Creedal. Whether one takes that as itself being a creed is a question of personal preference, I think.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fairly obviously, it depends on your definition of the term "creed". If you insist that "we have no creed" is itself a creed, then there isn't much to argue with ...

But in a strict sense they are non-Creedal. Whether one takes that as itself being a creed is a question of personal preference, I think.
Yes. What tends to get forgotten is that other groups in "old Dissent", such as the Baptists and Independents (which predate the RSOF) were also non-creedal. Hints of that survive today in that the Baptist Union of Great Britain does not have a Statement of Faith but a much shorter "Declaration of Principle".

Having said that, quite a number of individual churches have signed up to Statements of Faith such as the one produced by the Evangelical Alliance. Some churches do have doctrinal statements in their Trust Deeds, which strictly refer to what may or may not be promulgated within their buildings.

This has caused problems in that it assumes that "we all believe the same" and it becomes difficult to "police" heresy, which could be one reason why many Baptist churches slipped into Unitarianism in the 18th century. I also have an interesting survival of this attitude in that I have one member who shies at using creedal statements in church, not because he doesn't believe but because he sees doing so as alien to our tradition.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Revspeak alert
Is being a Quaker more belief in a particular Praxis than belief in a set of doctrines?
Pretty much, yes.

Also, in any meeting everyone may believe slightly different things - but they will overlap a lot. I think of it as a very messy venn diagram.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes. What tends to get forgotten is that other groups in "old Dissent", such as the Baptists and Independents (which predate the RSOF) were also non-creedal. Hints of that survive today in that the Baptist Union of Great Britain does not have a Statement of Faith but a much shorter "Declaration of Principle".
Well I don't know about this, I think it depends who you are and what kind of baptist you are. For some bapists, the 1689 Westminster Confession is far far closer to being a creed than what we're discussing above.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The point is, I think, that until Fox, most Christians in England believed that there were a bunch of things one had to believe to be saved. So the arguing was about what those things were and what the lines were.

Fox turned all that on its head by saying no, what is important is the indwelling of the Spirit. And subsequent generations of Quakers distilled this into what we have today.

That is a clear difference between the Quakers (and modern Unitarians) and almost all other Christian groups. Even the baptists ultimately believed in doctrines that needed to be believed to be saved.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For some bapists, the 1689 Westminster Confession is far far closer to being a creed than what we're discussing above.
I think you mean the Second Baptist Confession of Faith (Westminster is earlier). That's true, and I'd forgotten about it, but it only applied to the Particulars and not to the Generals. To this day, that stream - now the Grace Baptists - is much tighter on doctrine.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I can see that the SA position is different to the Quaker one on this issue but it too can easily be misconstrued.
Indeed - we have no credal, ecclesiological or theological objection to the sacraments; our non-practice is pragmatic and an affirmation both of the immediacy of saving grace threough the shed blood of Christ and the Wesleyan (not Quaker) inspired notion that all of life is sacramental.

The great 'sacramental hymn' of The Salvation Army has, as its first verse:

My life must be Christ's broken bread,
My love his outpoured wine,
A cup o'erfilled, a table spread
Beneath his name and sign.
That other souls, refreshed and fed,
May share his life through mine.


The difference between us and the Quakers is that we, fully subscribing to all the creeds, still believe that sacraments are a means of grace; we believe in the proclaiming the Lord's death till he comes again. We are fully immersed in atonement theology and the efficacy of the shed blood of Christ. Unlike the Quakers, obviously, who do not have a theology, a doctrine, a creed of atonement and therefore a eucharist would be total noinesense to them, having to foundation or reason.

I often say, in response to the charge that TSA doesn't practice the sacraments: 'But we belong to a Church that does.'

[ 09. December 2015, 08:22: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Which isn't a uniquely Quaker state of affairs, of course ...

But I do think there are some particular distinctives here that distinguish the Quakers from other groups that might be non-creedal or non sacramental on a formal sense.

I liked the 'weighty' observation among the initial responses to the OP - 'is everything sacramental except the eucharist?'

I think that identifies one of the key issues here. At what point does 'non-creedal' become 'anti-creedal' or being 'non-sacramental' become anti-sacramental?

The SA don't practice communion but I can't see them deferring or withholding membership from those who might wish to continue receiving communion elsewhere. I don't get the impression that Mudfrog despises the practice nor that he thinks that people who do are somehow deficient or 'weaker' in their faith - far from it.

However, the Quaker dictum, 'do so as long as you must' - whilst containing a depth of practical wisdom, could be construed as,'well, you carry on with such trifles as long as you feel you ought, Friend, but once you've matured and outgrown outward forms then you'd be in a better position to apply to join us.'

I'm sure it's not meant as bluntly as that - but it does seem as if the eucharist is a sticking point in a way it isn't so much of one for the SA who also have historical reasons to be wary of the potentially divisive aspects of eucharistic practice.

That said, the Quaker position follows as a logical corollary from their principles - and it would wrong to deny them those or to cavil at them for holding their views in all good conscience.

At the 'heart' of the Quaker way lies something very profound, I think - a reminder of 'first principles' and the essence of things. I sort of 'get' that when I'm around Friends without seeing them as in any way more or less irritating, judgemental or prone to pettiness than the rest of us in our own various ways.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I would insist, contra mudfrog, that it is not the case that Quakers do not have a theology. We don't have a creed (defined as a specific verbal formula to which one must assent), but theology we've got, starting with Barclay's Apology. And that's by no means the end of it. However, certain themes that have been prominent in Christian theology (especially parsing the internal relations of the persons of the Trinity) have no place in Quaker theology at all.

There is a certain aggressive skepticism about speculative theology in Quaker circles, it's true. My father used to use the word with much the same tone a Southern Baptist might use if forced to mention sodomy, and I was in my late teens before I realized that theology was not something inherently shameful...
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I would insist, contra mudfrog, that it is not the case that Quakers do not have a theology.
In that case you have a creed - you just call it something else
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
An 'anti-creed' ... rather like 'anti-matter'?

The thing is, though ExclamationMark, I've come across plenty of Baptists who also claim not to have a creed - or at least to acknowledge that they'd sign up to the historic creeds if necessary - but they don't think it's necessary ...

And to be quite blunt, they can also sound quite smug about it too ...

Which is a problem all of us who hold to any particular position strongly are going to face sooner or later ...
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, though ExclamationMark, I've come across plenty of Baptists who also claim not to have a creed - or at least to acknowledge that they'd sign up to the historic creeds if necessary - but they don't think it's necessary ...
... which is fine when there is a general consensus on belief. But it ceases to work when someone says something "off the wall": everyone knows that it's unorthodox, but there's no mechanism for making a ruling on it.

Like the Baptist line on congregational church government: "everyone knows" that's what we do (and it is enshrined in some church Trust Deeds) - but it's not in the Declaration of Principle.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
'Culture eats policy for breakfast,' as one of my friends likes to observe. Meaning that there are customs, styles, aesthetics that people often think they can change or override by simply getting something written down in a policy or directive. It doesn't work.

Would it be fair to characterise the written down method of doing things - creeds, policies, rules - as more top-down than the vaguer but more friendly and egalitarian method of developing a 'way'?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, though ExclamationMark, I've come across plenty of Baptists who also claim not to have a creed - or at least to acknowledge that they'd sign up to the historic creeds if necessary - but they don't think it's necessary ...
... which is fine when there is a general consensus on belief. But it ceases to work when someone says something "off the wall": everyone knows that it's unorthodox, but there's no mechanism for making a ruling on it.

Like the Baptist line on congregational church government: "everyone knows" that's what we do (and it is enshrined in some church Trust Deeds) - but it's not in the Declaration of Principle.
We have a process for that, its called a meeting for worship for clearness.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, none of these things are 'neutral' neither are they clear cut ... the historic Creeds were arrived at in a 'conciliar' way ... even if they were called by Emperors and heirarchs there was still a working-things-through process going on.

However we cut it, though, the results we've inherited were a close-run thing, though ...

Why should a Quaker 'meeting for clearness' or a congregational 'church meeting' in a Baptist context somehow be seen as squeaky-clean whereas an Ecumenical Council consisting of bishops and clergy be seen as rather more suspect?

[Big Grin]

I do have sympathy ... on a political level I sometimes think we're better off here in the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' - rather one that's written down, like the US one - which leads to interminable arguments about what was or wasn't meant by the 2nd Amendment and so on ...

One could also argue that the US Constitution operates in a more 'sola scriptura' kind of way whereas the British one is more analogous to 'Tradition' in the RC or Orthodox sense ...

[Biased]

But I wouldn't want to push or stretch the analogies too far ...

FWIW, I do think that Creeds are there to provide a framework rather than a strait-jacket ... but I do have some sympathy with ExclamationMark's suggestion that to be non-creedal is, in one sense, a form of being creedal ...

Just as attempts to be 'non-traditional' end up creating new traditions ...

That's fine - provided we recognise that's what we're doing and don't pretend that we are somehow a cut above all the mucky traditional malarkey ...
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also probably worth highlighting that once someone is a member of the Quaker meeting, they can represent it in the way that a minister represents other church denominations.

Not exactly, since we allow that Friends will have different views on aspects of Quakerism considered to be traditional. For example, the Simplicity Testimony. . . .I may see it in one way and live it that way. Another Friend may see it another way and live it another way.

So, it is hard for us to make any hard and fast rules about our traditional practices and points of view. Through the years, we have valued a personal relationship with the Divine which informs each person's inner guide.

It may be difficult for people to find a codified sense of what Quakers believe and easy to chalk it up to loose boundaries. Conversely, it may be hard for a Quaker to feel comfortable with the emphasis some other denominations place on a specifically stated set of beliefs that all are assumed to hold.

Some Friends try to limit intellectual attempts to explain, and I am one of them. My personal take is that we are all led to that which spiritually resonates in our hearts, and the inner logic unfolds from there. Since we are a diverse humanity, it follows that we are also spiritually diverse.

sabine
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why should a Quaker 'meeting for clearness' or a congregational 'church meeting' in a Baptist context somehow be seen as squeaky-clean whereas an Ecumenical Council consisting of bishops and clergy be seen as rather more suspect?
Firstly, I am not saying an ecumenical council is suspect.

But.

A meeting for worship for clearness is not attempting to set doctrine for everybody for all times.

Rather it would be an attempt to collectively discern, usually within a local meeting, whether an individual's sense they are being called by the spirit to do something is indeed a leading of the spirit or simply something that they desire. It is about trying to discern the leading for that individual at that point in their life, recognising that it may entirely to different to somebody else's spiritual journey. In that sense its aim is much more limited.

It might be most accurate to say that quakers who engage in unprogrammed worship believe in the process within that - rather than a particular outcome of it.

Going back to the op, if you fundamentally don't get that idea, then I think you probably don't grok the British quaker faith tradition - it is not just social liberalism + meditation - and this process is what binds together people of disparate views.

[ 14. December 2015, 20:49: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, I get that - I was using hyperbole to make a point ...

I'm not saying that a Quaker worship meeting for clearness is 'suspect' either ... as it happens, I'm quite intrigued by Quaker discernment processes as I'm pretty sure (in different ways and in our own various contexts) the rest of us could learn something from them.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating a pick-and-mix approach ... 'Hmmmm ... luvverly shiny discernment process over there with the Quakers ... let's replicate it or borrow it ...'

I probably wasn't making my point very clearly ... I certainly wasn't out to denigrate the Quaker meeting / discernment processes nor the practice of congregational church meetings as found among the Baptists. All I am saying is that these things aren't magically free from 'taint' ... we're all fallible human beings ...

And yes, that applies to the guys who sat at the Ecumenical Councils too ... but I'm prepared to accept that God was able to work in and through all that - in the same way as I'm sure he does in Quaker discernment processes and in congregational 'church meetings' - although all these things are also capable of being hijacked or distorted by anyone with an agenda and a degree of support from some group or other ...

If the Quakers have found some way of minimising those risks, then good for them.

I don't think I've ever caricatured the Quakers as simply social liberalism with a nip or two or meditation thrown in ... that would be as insulting as it is inaccurate.

I'm more than happy to accept Quakers on their own terms. I've mentioned a few times here that I've been impressed with what I've seen of Quakerism - which doesn't mean I can't have a wry chuckle at it at times - which is what I do with every other religious tradition I'e encountered ...

That doesn't mean I don't take it seriously.

As to whether I 'grok' [Biased] ('get', 'grasp'?) Quakerism is another issue. I don't pretend to 'get' it - nor would I unless I'd become a Quaker and been following the Quaker way for some considerable time - and even then I wouldn't lay claim to understanding the whole thing ...

Same with any other religious tradition. Having some kind of view of Roman Catholicism, for instance, isn't the same as actually becoming a Roman Catholic and participating in its inner life.

Same with Baptists, Methodism or anything else.

Going back to the OP - I was simply asking a question and the various Friends here have taken pains to answer that question - and I'm grateful to you all for that.

I'm not out to 'diss' Quakers, far from it - and as I've said several times throughout this thread I'm more than happy to accept the various explanations that Friends have put forward as to what might have happened in the incident reported in the OP.

I 'get' that Quakers might see a desire to continue receiving the Eucharist as some kind of indicator that the person involved might not fully 'grasp' the Quaker way - because they are demonstrating a reliance on 'outward forms'.

In the same way - whilst I might not be happy about it - I 'get' why certain Churches - the RCs and the Orthodox for instance - don't practice 'open communion' in the way that the CofE does these days and the way that most non-conformist churches do.

A different understanding applies in each case - and I 'get' and respect that.

As far as Quakerism goes, I don't pretend to 'get' it because my exposure to it doesn't go much further than attendance at a couple of meetings, an overnight stay in a Quaker Study Centre and a visit to the Quaker Tapestry in Kendal - alongside knowing Quakers as work colleagues and as student friends in the past.

I'm simply asking questions and in the course of doing that, sometimes elbow a vase or a lamp off the table -- I will endeavour to clear up any mess I may have caused.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I should probably have specified rhetorical you in my last paragraph, I was implying that if a recent attender didn't get this they might not be ready for membership.

[ 14. December 2015, 21:47: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - fair enough ...

As regards the OP incident - or alleged incident - I have no idea how long the women in question were attending Quaker meetings.

I can only speak for myself. Through the Ship and real-life contacts with Quakers I'm sufficiently aware of their position on 'outward forms' - so if I were ever to apply for membership of the Religious Society of Friends (and I'm not intending to, by the way - no disrespect to the Friends intended) ... I'd be sufficiently prepared for that so that any 'discernment' process around that issue wouldn't take me by surprise.

Perhaps these women were taken by surprise? Perhaps they'd misunderstood? Perhaps things hadn't been explained to them adequately at the outset ...

Who knows?

I can understand why Friends might have concerns about the 'readiness' of potential members if they were to persist in observing 'outward forms' of one kind or other - but one might easily turn it round and suggest that the Friends themselves might not understand what these women intended by it ...

If I persist in receiving communion, for instance, it doesn't necessarily follow that I believe that this is the 'only' way that God can be apprehended, as it were, or his grace received ...

Nor that people who don't observe some formally eucharistic practice in either an 'ordinance' or sacramental sense are somehow missing out on God's grace ...

But then, if the eucharist is important to me, I'm hardly likely - unlike the women in the OP - to want to join myself formally to a group - such as the Quakers or the Salvation Army who, for different reasons, choose not to observe this particular rite.

That doesn't mean I'd never attend a Quaker meeting or a service in a Salvation Army Citadel ... but it would mean that I'd be unlikely to apply for full membership of those bodies. Which would be fine by them ... they aren't missing out because I'm not there ... they probably benefit from my absence ...

So, yes, I 'get' what you're saying Doublethink ... I think.

FWIW, to borrow an RC term, I'm convinced that there is a 'charism' running through Quakerism as a group/movement with its roots in the radical Christian tradition of the 17th century.

Whatever we call that or however we label it - the Inner Light or 'charism' or whatever else - there is a 'there' there ... and I don't think that the Friends are saying that because there is a 'there' there that there isn't a 'there' anywhere else - and most non-Friends (if I can put it that way) would probably say the same in reverse as it were.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Gamaliel

You might like to think of who goes to the Ecumenical Council and who goes to the Church Meeting or Meeting for Clearness.

The answer is not holiness but the willing to trust the unpowerful to be part of the decision-making process.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm aware of that, Jengie.

You weren't going to get Joe Bloggs or Mavis Arkwright at an Ecumenical Council in the 4th or 5th centuries, were you?

That doesn't mean that Mavis Arkwright or Joe Bloggs aren't 'powerful' in some way within their own contexts at Wragg Street URC last Wednesday or the Blenkinsthorpe Friends worship meeting for clearness next Thursday evening ...
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I once met a police officer who was an elder in a Congregational chapel (not URC) in Yorkshire. He spent much of the conversation banging on and on and on about the evils of the nasty, wicked CofE system and how it didn't allow people to have their say and take control ... and at the same time disparaging the minister of his church for having a 'nervous breakdown' despite the fact that he 'didn't do any work' ...

I thought, 'Blimey, if I were an 'ordinary' member of that congregation, let alone the minister, I think I'd have a nervous breakdown too ...'

The 'powerful' aren't always the ones with the dog-collars or the pointy hats ...
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm aware of that, Jengie.

You weren't going to get Joe Bloggs or Mavis Arkwright at an Ecumenical Council in the 4th or 5th centuries, were you?

That doesn't mean that Mavis Arkwright or Joe Bloggs aren't 'powerful' in some way within their own contexts at Wragg Street URC last Wednesday or the Blenkinsthorpe Friends worship meeting for clearness next Thursday evening ...
Yes but Jenna the twelve-year-old from the estate who came into membership last communion is able to come, speak and vote at Church meeting. It is not that her voice will be weighted equally with Joe Bloggs or Mavis Arkwright but that it is weighted at all, that is surprising.

Her younger brother Ed who just happens to be in her care the day of church meeting can come and speak although not vote.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well bully for her.

Seriously, it's good that she can vote but I can't help but wonder what difference it makes in the overall scheme of things - it's not as if anyone gives a flying fart what you do or don't get up to in the URC.

I'm reminded of a story I heard from the boss of a once well-known Yorkshire advertising agency. When he first started out he made a presentation to the boss of a large textile firm.

When he'd finished the textile magnate leaned back in his chair and said, 'Well lad, that's all very good but it strikes me that all this advertising and PR is like pissing thissen in a thick worsted suit. It gives tha a nice warm feeling but no other bugger realises tha'rt doin' it.'

A similar thing applies, I think, to CofE synods and URC style congregational meetings. At least the Quakers have some enigmatic silence on their side.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Seriously, Jenna's involvement and ability to vote is clearly a good thing - and I'm sure will be of benefit in an holistic way.

I was being somewhat sarky and rhetorical earlier - of course there are differences between full-on Ecumenical Councils or Synods and congregational forms of church government and decision-making.

No need for anyone to get defensive about their own system.

It's somewhat tangential to the OP. Doublethink and the other Friends have given pretty clear explanations as to what might have happened there - and also why the Quakers adopt the particular position they have done on these issues.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Jenna the twelve-year-old from the estate who came into membership last communion is able to come, speak and vote at Church meeting. ...

Her younger brother Ed who just happens to be in her care the day of church meeting can come and speak although not vote.
If I may nit-pick a bit, that wouldn't be true in all Congregationalist (or even, I suspect, URC) churches by any means. Some would have a rule which only allows membership to (say) over-16s or -18s others do not allow non-members to attend Church Meetings, let alone speak in them.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Jenna's involvement and ability to vote is clearly a good thing - and I'm sure will be of benefit in an holistic way.
A tangent, but I disagree. The occasional practice of baptists and other non-conformists to bring in young teenagers to church membership is often, if not nearly always, destructive.

[ 16. December 2015, 08:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Jenna's involvement and ability to vote is clearly a good thing - and I'm sure will be of benefit in an holistic way.
A tangent, but I disagree. The occasional practice of baptists and other non-conformists to bring in young teenagers to church membership is often, if not nearly always, destructive.
These days - with most (if not all) churches having charitable status - a church meeting serves a wider function than simply "discovering and following the mind of Christ."

Wise though some (and I emphasise some) teenagers may be, the legal constitution of any church meetings suggests that any decisions which have a financial implication should only be made by those in a legal position to give assent. Currently only those of sound mind and aged 18 or over can enter into a financial contract. Any church meeting making a financial decision based on the voting "rights" of members under the age of majority is breaking the law, however much the under 18's may contribute to the discussion.

I'm sort of with Mr Cheesy on this one - take extreme care. At best make those members under 18 part of the church and encourage them in every way. help them to learn good community guidance and governance by being observors at church meetings until they are 18. Make sure that you talk to them about their experiences and impressions after every meeting they attend.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Now that is most helpful and, I confess, brings to the fore an issue I had not thought of - although I suspect that the legal responsibility finally lies in the hands of the Trustees (usually Minister and Elders/Deacons).
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Interesting ... I must admit I've got come across under 18s in Baptist church meetings myself - can't speak for the URC.

My point was a more general one - if done in a 'citizenship' type way it could be a good thing.

All these things depend on a wide range of factors and circumstances.

In my restorationist house-churchy days we used to scoff at congregational style church meetings - but when I encountered them again after 18 years in that scene I found them a breath of fresh air.

Depends where you're starting from.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Now that is most helpful and, I confess, brings to the fore an issue I had not thought of - although I suspect that the legal responsibility finally lies in the hands of the Trustees (usually Minister and Elders/Deacons).
It's a moot point which, to my knowledge, has not been tested. Trustees could always argue from a position that says that a decision made in good faith on the basis of the commitment given by the church, passes the responsibility back to the individual members.

With the new CIO's (Charitable Incorporated Organisations), Trustees liability is non existent and the onus is very much on those who direct them.

Under no circumstances should non members vote but there are no objections to their being present as observers and, if specifically invited, to speak at the meeting. They cannot however propose or second matters to be voted on.

We have meetings which are members only but on broader issues, where we seek a wide variety of opinions, we have whole congregation forums, often with invited guests from the ommunity or beyond. (About twice a year). These provide opportunities for gathering infrmation and discussion which usually result in a decision made at a subsequent members'meeting. The discussions at the fora are focussed and often driven by a pre circulated set of key issues/questions for guidance and to avoid tangents.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Interesting ... I must admit I've got come across under 18s in Baptist church meetings myself - can't speak for the URC.

My point was a more general one - if done in a 'citizenship' type way it could be a good thing.

All these things depend on a wide range of factors and circumstances.

In my restorationist house-churchy days we used to scoff at congregational style church meetings - but when I encountered them again after 18 years in that scene I found them a breath of fresh air.

Depends where you're starting from.
Restorationist government is fine but the real test is when an elder driven decision or initiative goes wrong. There's beena disturbing tendancy over the years to adopt a blame game or exercise deflection rather than accepting responisbility. It's not unique to restorationist or any denominational grouping - it's just that the history and psyche of restorationalism makes it rather more likely. Less checks and balances and all that.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Absolutely, which is one of the reasons we left restorationism.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0