A Quaker Understanding...

[Publisher]

I must admit…before reading some of this thread…I had very little knowledge of Quakerism. I did not know much about their beliefs or practices. Now I am more confused than ever! It seems like an eclectic free-for-all.
Somehow?

Yes. Islam falls into that category.
All of the “ifs” are reminiscent of agnosticism.

Just as the Orthodox do not get into the “metaphysical” arguements concerning “transubstanitation” but see it as one of the “Mysteries”…neither do Friends claim to understand the “ins and outs” of the Incarnation…we don’t know how in Jesus of Nazareth God was revealed and made known…just that he was…I don’t know how God was revealed or how He lived on this earth…but I do believe God lived among us in Jesus of Nazareth…I don’t know how…nor do I pretend to understand…it is a matter of faith for me.

I don’t insist that others embrace my beliefs and explanations concerning the Incarnation…it is Mystery…I invite them to “come and see” for themselves…I invite them to “experience” for themselves the Presence in the midst…Friends accept all who wish to join us on this Journey, realizing that not all of us are at the same “place”…nor “understand” the Mystery of God exactly as each other…only that the Experience is open and available to all.

 

[Mickey]

Just as the Orthodox do not get into the “metaphysical” arguements concerning “transubstanitation” but see it as one of the “Mysteries”…neither do Friends claim to understand the “ins and outs” of the Incarnation…

Oh please. Believing in the Real Presence without using the term “transubstantiation”, is a far cry from denial of the Virgin Birth or claiming that you do not know about the Incarnation.

Mystery = Sacrament

we don’t know how in Jesus of Nazareth God was revealed and made known

Yes…so you have indicated.

I don’t insist that others embrace my beliefs and explanations concerning the Incarnation

I don’t think you would get many takers on a Catholic forum.

 

[Publisher]

Oh please. Believing in the Real Presence without using the term “transubstantiation”, is a far cry from denial of the Virgin Birth or claiming that you do not know about the Incarnation.

Mystery = Sacrament
Yes…so you have indicated.

I don’t think you would get many takers on a Catholic forum.

Friend Mickey, When we went to Him and asked for His Baptism, many of us never thought we’d encounter anything but the baptism of repentance…we also ended up with the baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit…what we’ve encounterd on this Road we’ve “covenanted with God” to be on is not what most of us “signed on to”…some of us came from “orthodox faith” then to “not so orthodox” to down right “atheistisc/agnotic” at times…to believe the Light is in all men equally without measure is difficult at times…life itself gets in the way…it can be a difficult Journey back to the Light…“But I know Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him against that Day.” They are Good Hands to be in…sometimes it’s difficult to believe that…but for the most part…it’s our salvation.

This is one Quaker’s understanding of things…of course I consider it very Quakerly…I srtill believe in the “I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death, but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness.” George Fox…we are in Good Hands, they will Hold Us Up…we rest in the Everlasting Arms…were safe in His Arms…that is my faith in a nutshell.

 

[GaryTaylor]

quakerinfo.org/quakerism/beliefs.html

While Friends may differ on “religious” belief…what binds us together is we believe “that of God” dwells in each of us…that God is immanent and Truly Present among us…and each of us have direct and unmediated acess to God without need of priest or pastor…no religous rite or ritual is required to be performed to us of for us by another individual…each of us is priest and minister.

OK I see, and Thanks. Publisher, hasen’t this been around since the 1800’s? Maybe I’m confusing this. I honestly know very litte about this. Thanks The link gives me the impression its rather new?

 

[onenow1]

OK I see, and Thanks. Publisher, hasen’t this been around since the 1800’s? Maybe I’m confusing this. I honestly know very litte about this. Thanks The link gives me the impression its rather new?

Hi, Gary

You know it seems early 1800’s were very active times. Jehovahs, Mormons, Adventists and some others, I’m sure. :coffeeread:

God Bless

 

[Mickey]

When we went to Him and asked for His Baptism, many of us never thought we’d encounter anything but the baptism of repentance…we also ended up with the baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit…

The Mystery (Sacrament) of Baptism–is the Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. All of you who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.

“I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death, but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness.” George Fox

‘Mary is the gate through which Christ entered the world when He was brought forth in the virginal birth, and the matter of his birth did not break the seal of virginity.’
St Ambrose

 

[erichael]

I would take anything Publisher posts with a grain of salt. Having read his/her posts on other threads, it is clear to me he/she has a personal agenda to push. If you still have any questions on Quakers ask your priest or forum master; you’ll get a less biased answer that route.

George Fox, the founder of these people, was a disgruntled butcher’s son who didn’t want to work for his father or for anyone else for that matter. He was known for his laziness. He invented a lazy society of friends who lived without sacrements, sacramentals, creeds, dogma, et cetera preferring to sit idly while supposedly contemplating God. Note, I said God, not Jesus Christ.

I find it hilarious that Publisher denies the Bible yet repeatedly, when it suits his/her purposes, quotes from it. He/she likens it to a book of myths citing for an example the incarnation of Christ via the virgin birth. There is little in that book he/she believes. Does that not send up a red flag to a faithful believer?

I joined this community to converse with like-minded Catholics on a variety of topics, not to go round and round with Publisher in an endless circle. I think, though this is just my opinion and I’m certainly not soliciting votes here, that Publisher’s posts poison every thread he touches with his gnostic, Ophra-mystic, new-age mumbo-jumbo that serves no purpose other than to insult God-fearing, Christ-believing, Catholics.

I won’t be posting again.

Love in Christ

Bye!

 

[waxwing]

For most people who visit an un-programmed Meeting…it’s very “uncomfortable” and “boring”…I invited a co-worker to Meeting one First Day as he too was very interested in what I meant by “spectator”…as the Meeting “centered down” into worship as people found a “comfortable” position to quiet the “rustling” and noise…after about 10-15 mins my friend leaned over and said…“When does Meeting begin?”…I responded in a quiet whisper…“It began about 10 minutes ago.”

One Friend related a similar experience…his guest leaned over and asked…“When does the service begin?” His answer…“When the meeting is over.”

He didn’t return to Meeting…it was “not his cup of tea”.

In a traditional Friend’s Meeting, there is no alter, cross, pulpit, statues, stained glass pictures, candles or books. The meeting room is very plain…with the chairs or benches set up in a “U” pattern. There may be the “Clerks Table” set off to the side near the “facing bench” (where the “elders” sit in some meetings) that has a notebook and maybe a small vase of flowers on it…this is the only decoration.

Each Friend is supposed to prepare to “enter into meeting” before they arrive at the meetinghouse…and arrive on time…chronic late arrivers usually end up “eldered” at some point to curb the disturbance to the meeting with late arrivals.

Each person is a “participant” of the meeting…each person has the “gift” to bring vocal ministry IF moved by the Spirit to do so. Each Friend is to quiet their hearts and turn “inward” to that Sacred Place where they meet God…and join with each other in the Living Silence to discern the mind and will of God. It is a time to raise our hearts in prayer and adoration…to seek forgiveness for sins of ommission as well as commission…to renew ourselves in the Presence…and most if not all of this takes place in Silence.

When the one who has “care of the Meeting” that particular First Day senses the meeting is “closing”…they turn to the person next them and shake their hand…this signals close of meeting…each Friend turns to the person next to them and shakes hands and meeting is over.

One gets out of Meeting what one brings and contributes…but unless one is actively engaged in the process of centering and worship…sitting in silence for an hour or so gets boring…there’s nothing to “observe” but a group of people sitting in Silence with their heads bowed…not much a “spectator” would appreciate.

There may be a time of singing after Meeting for those who wish to participate…or they may retire to the fellowship hall for coffee/tea and refreshments…some Meetings have a pot-luck lunch…a “love feast”…each Meeting is autonomous.

Hi Publisher
Just have a few questions about the un-programmed vs the programmed Quaker service. First of whiich one is more prevalant amongst the Quaker community? Have they both allways been around or did one veer off the ‘traditional’ service and start their own, also how do each view the other? Are they both seen as equally Quaker? Is one seen as the Conservative Branch and the other the Liberal. Can a unprogrammed service have vote and decide they want to join the programmed friends and vice versa. I know I am throwing out a lot of questions but just want to get a better idea of these two branches of Quakerism and if anything else is different beside the Sunday AM flow of the service

Thanks

 

[Publisher]

Hi Publisher
Just have a few questions about the un-programmed vs the programmed Quaker service. First of whiich one is more prevalant amongst the Quaker community? Have they both allways been around or did one veer off the ‘traditional’ service and start their own, also how do each view the other? Are they both seen as equally Quaker? Is one seen as the Conservative Branch and the other the Liberal. Can a unprogrammed service have vote and decide they want to join the programmed friends and vice versa. I know I am throwing out a lot of questions but just want to get a better idea of these two branches of Quakerism and if anything else is different beside the Sunday AM flow of the service

Thanks

The “programmed” meetings…usually use the designation “Friend’s Chruch” instead of “Friend’s Meeting”…the “programmed” meetings are “innovations” from the 19th century “Great Awakening” revival movements that spread through out the US…there had already been the “Hicksite” vs “Orthodox” split at the end of the 18th century into the 19th…both 'branches" were “non-programmed” however.

The “Gurneyites” (programmed) and “Wilberites” “non programmed” spilt during this time of the “Great Awakening”. The pastoral system was introduced where each Meeting had a paid clergyman to minister to the needs of the Meeting and provide sermons and pastoral care…like most evangelical Protestants do.

While programmed meetings are most prevelant now in the US, South America and Africa, I believe in the UK all Meetings are “unprogrammed”.

All the branches of Quakerism continue to work together…the American Friends Service Committee and some other Quaker umbrella groups seek to keep all Friends involved together.

The unprogrammed Meeting I belong to once a month has a “sister meeting”…that happens to be “programmed”…and meet for worship and fellowship once a month on a Sunday evening.

The Friend’s church does have a time of “silent worship”…in their regular services…usually lasts 10-20 minutes…some Friend’s churches have an “unprogrammed” Meeting for Worship once a month OR on Sunday evenings.

All Friends believe that each of us have “that of God” residing within us…and we must learn to listen to the Light. All Friends believe in addressing social concerns and have embrace the Peace Testimony. Many Friend’s “recorded ministers”…Friends don’t “ordain” ministers…they “record” the ordination…only God can ordain one to minister and Friends can only accept and record that ordination as moved by the Spirit…

Programmed Friends ministers are educated much as any evangelical minister would be trained…college or university…seminary then offer themselves to the various meetings to “call” them to service.

The “schisms” are becoming less an issue among us…since Friends beleive that each of us must be allowed to seek and search for God according to the Light provided acknowledge that while “Friends Church” is not “traditional”…they still are Friends.

The Meetings that us the “traditional” way of Quaker worship, silently waiting upon the Lord…is the least populated group of Friends…but a resurgence of “Quaker ways” is gaining among our evangelical Friends…in some Friends churches…there is a “programmed” service with singing, sermon, vocal prayer…then there is the “traditional” Quaker meeting based on silence…

The worth of the “innovations” is judged more in terms of do these “innovations” assist in the service of others and keep the "Quaker testimony’ that God is immanent and Present among us when we gather…no matter whether we gather as a “programmed meeting” or an “unprogrammed meeting.”

 

[waxwing]

The “programmed” meetings…usually use the designation “Friend’s Chruch” instead of “Friend’s Meeting”…the “programmed” meetings are “innovations” from the 19th century “Great Awakening” revival movements that spread through out the US…there had already been the “Hicksite” vs “Orthodox” split at the end of the 18th century into the 19th…both 'branches" were “non-programmed” however.

The “Gurneyites” (programmed) and “Wilberites” “non programmed” spilt during this time of the “Great Awakening”. The pastoral system was introduced where each Meeting had a paid clergyman to minister to the needs of the Meeting and provide sermons and pastoral care…like most evangelical Protestants do.

While programmed meetings are most prevelant now in the US, South America and Africa, I believe in the UK all Meetings are “unprogrammed”.

All the branches of Quakerism continue to work together…the American Friends Service Committee and some other Quaker umbrella groups seek to keep all Friends involved together.

The unprogrammed Meeting I belong to once a month has a “sister meeting”…that happens to be “programmed”…and meet for worship and fellowship once a month on a Sunday evening.

The Friend’s church does have a time of “silent worship”…in their regular services…usually lasts 10-20 minutes…some Friend’s churches have an “unprogrammed” Meeting for Worship once a month OR on Sunday evenings.

All Friends believe that each of us have “that of God” residing within us…and we must learn to listen to the Light. All Friends believe in addressing social concerns and have embrace the Peace Testimony. Many Friend’s “recorded ministers”…Friends don’t “ordain” ministers…they “record” the ordination…only God can ordain one to minister and Friends can only accept and record that ordination as moved by the Spirit…

Programmed Friends ministers are educated much as any evangelical minister would be trained…college or university…seminary then offer themselves to the various meetings to “call” them to service.

The “schisms” are becoming less an issue among us…since Friends beleive that each of us must be allowed to seek and search for God according to the Light provided acknowledge that while “Friends Church” is not “traditional”…they still are Friends.

The Meetings that us the “traditional” way of Quaker worship, silently waiting upon the Lord…is the least populated group of Friends…but a resurgence of “Quaker ways” is gaining among our evangelical Friends…in some Friends churches…there is a “programmed” service with singing, sermon, vocal prayer…then there is the “traditional” Quaker meeting based on silence…

The worth of the “innovations” is judged more in terms of do these “innovations” assist in the service of others and keep the "Quaker testimony’ that God is immanent and Present among us when we gather…no matter whether we gather as a “programmed meeting” or an “unprogrammed meeting.”

I would think that schisms would become less of issue in a non creedal church. There is a phrase in some Protestant Churches “In essentials, unity, in non essentials; liberty, in all things, charity” Of course the defining the essentials if the tricky part otherwise we’d have more unity. How would Quakerism approach this phrase, are there essentials to unite around. I know theres no creed but is there a bare minimum one needs to agree to?

 

[Publisher]

I would think that schisms would become less of issue in a non creedal church. There is a phrase in some Protestant Churches “In essentials, unity, in non essentials; liberty, in all things, charity” Of course the defining the essentials if the tricky part otherwise we’d have more unity. How would Quakerism approach this phrase, are there essentials to unite around. I know theres no creed but is there a bare minimum one needs to agree to?

I believe most Friends would accept the phrase…and add another to is…Margaret Fell Fox said “Doctrine divides, service unites.”

The “essentials” would be IMO, on how we treat our neighbor…“If a man says he loves God and yet hates his neighbor…the truth is not in him.”

Any “essential” doctrine or belief MUST be translated into the lives we live.

 

[Edward_H]

I believe most Friends would accept the phrase…and add another to is…Margaret Fell Fox said “Doctrine divides, service unites.”

The “essentials” would be IMO, on how we treat our neighbor…“If a man says he loves God and yet hates his neighbor…the truth is not in him.”

Any “essential” doctrine or belief MUST be translated into the lives we live.

Well, you can see where the lack of authoritative interpretation and doctrine has led the Protestant Church; there is no agreement on what is even essential and nonessential, or even what charity itself means.

There are, say, hundreds of points (actually not points but more like vectors in the “sphere” of faith), bearing on some aspect of faith or our life in faith. Love, mercy, grace, justice, pre-destination, heaven, divine sonship, faith, hope, forgiveness, work, correspondence with grace, unity, communion, the Trinity, marriage, sin, the natural and supernatural purposes of human virtue, prayer, and the moral application of faith (stem cells, abortion, euthanasia), etc.

Without a central authority to draw out the intersection point of these vectors (all pointing to Truth) we will see - due to limits of any one human or street corner Church or Meeting House - enormous variation in how people actually live out their faith and propose boundaries. 30000+ different Protestant Churches (this is a figure traceable to a Protestant organization).

Diffusion is going on like there’s no tomorrow.

 

[waxwing]

Well, you can see where the lack of authoritative interpretation and doctrine has led the Protestant Church; there is no agreement on what is even essential and nonessential, or even what charity itself means.

There are, say, hundreds of points (actually not points but more like vectors in the “sphere” of faith), bearing on some aspect of faith or our life in faith. Love, mercy, grace, justice, pre-destination, heaven, divine sonship, faith, hope, forgiveness, work, correspondence with grace, unity, communion, the Trinity, marriage, sin, the natural and supernatural purposes of human virtue, prayer, and the moral application of faith (stem cells, abortion, euthanasia), etc.

Without a central authority to draw out the intersection point of these vectors (all pointing to Truth) we will see - due to limits of any one human or street corner Church or Meeting House - enormous variation in how people actually live out their faith and propose boundaries. 30000+ different Protestant Churches (this is a figure traceable to a Protestant organization).

Diffusion is going on like there’s no tomorrow.

This is where I give Quakerism some credit and Publisher please jump in to correct/clarify/add to this - doesn’t seem like Quakerism even goes down the usual Protestant road(s). By this I mean ifs its not driven by doctrine rather by treating our neighbor as ourselves and letting the light inside shine so that other may see us as beacons in dark world, all the while seeking God in all the details of life big and small. Then what is there is divide over. I admit and I say this in charity but it does seem a bit “out there”, at least I see honesty in their attempt. Now with the X amount of thousand of Protestants splintering all over the place, I think people are actually smart enough to figure the essentials, to really boil it down to what it means to be a Christian. The problem I see is not lack of intelligence its the mighty ego which it get in the way of Denominations, Nondenominations, Pastors, Talking Heads in the Church. I have hard time believing people can’t figure it out to the point where they decide on the essentials and unite around those.

 

[Denise1957]

I wonder what some of the older Quakers think. And I wonder if it would help them to energize some stronger formation and grounding for the younger folks.

I wonder, too, what some of the older Quakers would think. My great grandmother, whom I was fortunate enough to spend a lot of time with as a child, was a raised as a Quaker. She left that faith when she married a non-Quaker. Her grandparents on both sides were from established Quaker communities on the east coast of the U.S.

She was very kind, thoughtful, and caring, and rarely did she ever criticize anyone in the family unless they did something morally wrong, such as living together as a couple outside of marriage. She would have been appalled at the liberal ideas which Quakers hold today.

If the Holy Ghost were really guiding Quakers, as they believe, then the Holy Ghost has changed His mind as to what constitutes sin (which is, of course, impossible).

My understanding is that some Quaker communities now believe that it is not even necessary to be a professed Christian to be a Quaker.

 

[kentuckyliz]

I worked at a Quaker boarding high school where the community discerned through consensus that the high school freshman who discerned it was her role in the community was to sell drugs was OK with them…and the staff got high with the students. I couldn’t get out of there fast enough. They asked me if I would stay on as Dean of Students–having saved a student’s life that year when she was committing suicide and they didn’t want to do anything about it because it would make their community look bad.

No. Freakin. Way.

Satan can appear as an angel of Light.

 

[Edward_H]

I pointed out earlier the remarkable and commendable approach to living out their faith that many of the older Quakers had. But I didn’t see any real formation going on in the younger ones. It may have been going on; I am far far from a good study of Quakerism.

I have Quaker in-laws and they seem half way between their parents and the diffusing younger generations. They themselves differ on same sex marriage, abortion, etc.

While some may argue that these moral aspects aren’t essential to faith, or are not determining clues as to whether “one faith expression” is more aligned with Truth than others, I think they are, no little truth can contradict Truth (not my idea). It seems our Faith needs to be coherent and integrative.

And while many Catholics have their own opinion about these moral matters, or even about what some would call “essential” matters, the Church itself doesn’t shift stances, but instead constantly deepens and integrates into its “deposit” its understanding of the moral and spiritual life.

 

[Publisher]

Modern Quakerism is seeking to “redefine” itself. Now with the establishment of “programmed meetings” and the focus on the internal life has been somewhat lost or forgotten…there is a “resurgance” among Friends to “find their roots” and return to examining the benefits of “Silent Worship”.

I have only known one “older Friend” that used plain language…she was very concervative in her beliefs…but still honored “that of God” in each Friend she differed with.

What is one of the strengths of Quakerism…IMO…is it allows each of it’s members to “work out their own salvation”…to “answer that of God” in themselves and then seek to find it’s expression in the life of the Meeting.

Friends do believe in Truth…so much so that no Friend will deny anothers Journey in search of it…nor will they insist that the “majority” statement of faith be affirmed and embraced if in clear conscience that particular Friend cannot answer honestly that “This is what I believe”…Truth finds it’s expression in how we live…how we treat others…how we resond to agression…how we respond to criticism…there are “peacful ways” to do so…and while many want to be told what to believe…Friends insist that each person in the Meeting must embrace Quakerism on their own terms and be truthful in the faith statements we do share.

I can still worship with those who believe differently than I do because I believe in them resides the “Seed of God”…the “Light Within”…“that of God”…and while I may not make the choices other Friends make…I will honor their choice as exercising their agency to do so.

I…according to Quaker belief…cannot point to any “ritual” and say…“I received such and such so I am a Christian”…for a Friend to be a “Christian” is to “be a Christian”…I trust that God did for me what I could not do for myself…He Himself has sought me…I need to turn to no other to “do something” for me to “make me right with God”…He has done it all in Jesus of Nazareth…and through His True Baptism we are made one in the Body of Christ…it is not required that YOU believe it in that way…what is required of me is that I live according to what I can truthfully affirm with conviction…“There is One, even Christ Jesus that can speak to thy condition…and my heart did leap for joy.”

 

[Denise1957]

I recall reading in a book by G.K. Chesteron, several years ago, in which he mentioned the Quakers. He mentioned (according to my possibly-flawed memory) that the Quakers take one aspect of Catholicism, and form their religious beliefs around it. This aspect is that of love, peace, and mercy. I do have respect for the Quakers, since my Puritan ancestors date back the the pilgrims at Plymouth in the 1620’s.

Our Lord told His Apostles to go out to all nations to teach all that He had taught them, and to baptize. He did not say that all that was needed is to baptize, then teach about love, peace and mercy by having “the spirit” decend upon you, and then you’re good to go. No, there’s much more to it than that. The Church has remained true to what Our Lord said to do: that is why the Church still, as it did two-thousand years ago, strives to baptize (according to the formula prescribed by Our Lord), and to teach ALL that He had taught. And that is why truth does not change. The same truth that was given before the Ascension is the same truth as that of today.

Regarding the need for ritual, well, God has a right to be worshipped in the manner in which He chooses. Every ritual in the Mass leads up the the Holy Sacrifice on Calvary. When I was a Protestant, I could not understand the need for such ritual. After all, wasn’t it enough, I thought, to just believe? It was only after attending Mass for two years before my conversion that I realized the great importance of the rituals. We Catholics have a duty to worship Our Lord in the manner prescribed by the Church. No one has a right to try to take that away from us.

 

[Publisher]

Friend, no one want to take anything from you…that’s not the Quaker way.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

Former Quaker here. I read CA occasionally but this thread was enough to get me to sign up.

Just for the sake of perspective, I thought I’d share the viewpoint of evangelical Quakerism. Most Quakers down South are much closer to conservative, Bible-based Protestants than to the brand of Quakerism that Publisher has espoused. Most of them are also “programmed,” meaning they have a specific order of worship on Sunday mornings (much like any other evangelical group). They would agree that Jesus is their savior and would affirm most of the other core truths common to most of Christianity (e.g. the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Trinity, the inspiration of the Bible, etc.). For these Quakers, it is absolutely **not **okay to believe whatever you want as long as it feels right.

By and large, they still adhere to a non-sacramental way of life; or, as Publisher did a good job of demonstrating earlier, they believe that “all of life” is a sacrament. When I came into the Church at age 27, I had never been baptized. Most also still have at least a brief period of “open worship,” in which they believe the Holy Spirit may speak to or through anyone.

Anyone who has read through this post realizes that, as is the case with so many other denominations, trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint Quaker belief is like trying to nail jello to the wall. (Sorry for the cliche.) Ultimately what this means is that it doesn’t have much to say. And it’s one of the main reasons I’m now a Catholic.