Ask a Quaker

[VQR]

I got a definition from wikipedia for the Trinity as below

The doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or hypostases:the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; “one God in three persons”. The three persons are distinct, yet are one “substance, essence or nature”. A nature is what one is, while a person is who one is

Is that what you believe?

Yes, with the underlying understanding that there is no God but God. I might add that have always found both descriptions and analogies for this concept slightly lacking and believe that the full truth of the Trinity may transcend our full earthly understanding.

 

[Deva1234]

Here is where we likely differ in relatively significant ways. You refer to the Church as a distinct entity, while for me the Church is the body of individuals gathered to worship.

But with no authority, and with some Quakers rejecting even belief in God, there is nothing for some Quakers to worship.

You see the problem here?

This is what Protestantism inevitably leads to.

This is why God gives us the gift of the Church.

By the way, there are three meanings of the word church, not one; a building, a people and an organisation. The original, as I’m sure you know, meant an assembly of people.

 

[JRKH]

What are some of the actual tenants of your faith which make it different from say Baptists, or First Christians, etc?

I would add - what makes Quakers different than Unitarians since it seems (from my brief reading) that you can believe pretty much whatever…?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Fox himself wrote a great deal about his views on baptism and the rejection of it was one of the largest causes of contention between Quakers and the Anglicans. My personal view is that Baptism is not a single occurrence but a continuous part of my relationship with God, and that its significance is not directly enhanced or reduced by the physical ritual of immersion in water.

I do want to be clear that I am “against” water Baptism only in the sense that I do not view it as necessary - as opposed to, for example, viewing it as wrong. The verse I quoted actually contrasted Christian Baptism with the Baptism of John - it was John the Baptist that used water. Christian Baptism is a Baptism of sanctification in which our souls are cleansed from all past sin and are infused with the supernatural life of the Holy Spirit.:extrahappy:I agree with this sentence 100%.

(Bolding mine)
This sounds a bit like the discussion between Catholics and non-Catholics that is more commonly referred to as the difference between Justification and Sanctification.

Here is where we likely differ in relatively significant ways. You refer to the Church as a distinct entity, while for me the Church is the body of individuals gathered to worship. Within the Quaker organization regional, national, and international levels fulfill vital administrative roles, but they do not have any particular authority.

Usually, disagreements are handled by additional time in silence, prayer, and discussion. Occasionally (but frequently on a historical scale) disagreements result in splits, which is why the “family tree” for Quaker organizations is rather fractal. I do not and cannot credibly make the claim that the Quaker manner of decision making is efficient.

Interesting…So - When two Quakers disagree on what is correct they can argue amongst themselves but they cannot “Tell it to the Church” as instructed in Mt 18:17 because a) different meetings might hold different views, and b) even within a particular meeting different persons are free to hold different (and even contradictory) views.
In a larger sense then (to usurp the biblical example (Acts 15)) When Quakers from Jerusalem disagree with Quakers from Antioch they do not follow the biblical example of taking it to the Church…

This leads to the question - how much stock and store do the Quakers place in the Bible and Sola Scriptura?

Peace
James

 

[VQR]

But with no authority, and with some Quakers rejecting even belief in God, there is nothing for some Quakers to worship.

You see the problem here?

This is what Protestantism inevitably leads to.

This is why God gives us the gift of the Church.

By the way, there are three meanings of the word church, not one; a building, a people and an organisation. The original, as I’m sure you know, meant an assembly of people.

I do see a problem, and agree that being a “Godless Quaker” is not a path to salvation. I also think other members of that individual’s meeting are doing him a disservice by not making this clear (though to be fair they might have; I only met him once).

In Quaker parlance, “meeting” refers to a specific congregation, “meeting house” to a building where people meet to worship, and “church” refers to the body of believers.

 

[SteveVH]

Fox himself wrote a great deal about his views on baptism and the rejection of it was one of the largest causes of contention between Quakers and the Anglicans. My personal view is that Baptism is not a single occurrence but a continuous part of my relationship with God, and that its significance is not directly enhanced or reduced by the physical ritual of immersion in water.

In a sense we would agree in that the grace of Baptism will not be fully realized until our lives come to an end. There is a continuous process which we call “conversion”, and this is most definitely something that occurs throughout our life, made possible by the grace we receive in Baptism as well as the other sacraments.

I do want to be clear that I am “against” water Baptism only in the sense that I do not view it as necessary - as opposed to, for example, viewing it as wrong. The verse I quoted actually contrasted Christian Baptism with the Baptism of John - it was John the Baptist that used water. Christian Baptism is a Baptism of sanctification in which our souls are cleansed from all past sin and are infused with the supernatural life of the Holy Spirit.:extrahappy:I agree with this sentence 100%.

Are you aware that, from the earliest days of the Church, Christian Baptism entailed the use of water? My question would be by what authority did the Quakers deem this unnecessary? In other words, would you not imagine that those who were contemporaries of the Apostles received the correct teaching from them on this matter? Or at least, is it not worth considering why the early Church believed it was necessary?

Here is where we likely differ in relatively significant ways. You refer to the Church as a distinct entity, while for me the Church is the body of individuals gathered to worship. Within the Quaker organization regional, national, and international levels fulfill vital administrative roles, but they do not have any particular authority.

Usually, disagreements are handled by additional time in silence, prayer, and discussion. Occasionally (but frequently on a historical scale) disagreements result in splits, which is why the “family tree” for Quaker organizations is rather fractal. I do not and cannot credibly make the claim that the Quaker manner of decision making is efficient.

I have to tell you how much I appreciate your honest assessment.

From the Catholic perspective, we believe that God did not leave us with a book with which to try and ascertain truth. He left us with a living Church and gave that Church extraordinary authority. The power to bind in heaven what is bound on earth and to loose in heaven what is loosed on earth; the power to forgive sins; and the promise that he would never leave his Church and would send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. Our faith in our Church rests on our faith in Christ and his promises.

Yes. Mine might differ in external form from what you envision since it does not involve water.

Okay, thanks a lot.

 

[Deva1234]

I do see a problem, and agree that being a “Godless Quaker” is not a path to salvation. I also think other members of that individual’s meeting are doing him a disservice by not making this clear (though to be fair they might have; I only met him once).

In Quaker parlance, “meeting” refers to a specific congregation, “meeting house” to a building where people meet to worship, and “church” refers to the body of believers.

I don’t think he was that unique. I’ve heard quite a bit of atheist Quakers.

Thanks for starting this thread.

When I saw yet another ‘ask a …’ thread I groaned, but I’m finding this one quite interesting.

 

[VQR]

(Bolding mine)
Interesting…So - When two Quakers disagree on what is correct they can argue amongst themselves but they cannot “Tell it to the Church” as instructed in Mt 18:17 because a) different meetings might hold different views, and b) even within a particular meeting different persons are free to hold different (and even contradictory) views.
In a larger sense then (to usurp the biblical example (Acts 15)) When Quakers from Jerusalem disagree with Quakers from Antioch they do not follow the biblical example of taking it to the Church…

This leads to the question - how much stock and store do the Quakers place in the Bible and Sola Scriptura?

Peace
James

I disagree that with that assessment regarding Quakers and Matthew 18:17. The Greek word translated as “Church” in this verse does not necessarily connote a central authority, for example it is commonly translated as “assembly” in Acts 19:32. I cannot speak for the “atheist Quaker” congregation as to whether they followed this direction, but it is the model practiced by my meeting.

Again speaking for myself. The scriptures (meaning for me the Protestant Bible, can of worms opened I am sure) are holy, unique, and worthy of study. Other writings are also worthy of study but an a different level, all equally fallible. Specifically, writings by Fox or other famous Quakers are not considered to be of greater value or “holier” than writings by non-Quakers. I think this encompasses the spirit of Sola Scriptura as I understand it from Googling.

 

[VQR]

I don’t think he was that unique. I’ve heard quite a bit of atheist Quakers.

Thanks for starting this thread.

When I saw yet another ‘ask a …’ thread I groaned, but I’m finding this one quite interesting.

I am glad you find it interesting. I also have heard other atheist Quakers, but he was the only one I know of actually have meeting (not to boast, but I have met a lot of Quakers ).

Personally, I am first a Christian, and a focus on personal guidance from the Holy Spirit is a major part of what makes me Quaker. This makes it difficult for me to reconcile the concept of being atheist but still considering oneself Quaker. Seems quite indefensible to me, even if I (if you will forgive the term) attempt to play devil’s advocate.

To provide a bit of relevant background, the splits in the Quaker faith over the years have resulted in three general groups and a number of smaller ones, each with distinct belief systems which still vary significantly between meetings and individuals:

Evangelical Friends - Bears more resemblance to a “un-aligned” Protestant Christian church than the others. I am a member of a church in this group.

Gurneyite - I do not know much about this group, but from Wikipedia they seem similar to Evangelicals.

Liberal - I think this is what many people familiar with denominations picture when they imagine Quakers. Personal beliefs vary widely between individuals, and many (most?) believe that personal guidance from God should be followed even if it contradicts to the Bible. The extreme extension of this would be Quaker atheism (if you can make sense of that article, you are smarter than me…).

 

[VQR]

I would add - what makes Quakers different than Unitarians since it seems (from my brief reading) that you can believe pretty much whatever…?

Peace
James

Again, I am falling back on Google here. Do you mean Christian Unitarianism or Unitarian Universalism. The former seems to focus on rejecting the concept of the Trinity, which is not a focus of Quakers (to the best of my understanding I have the same interpretation of this concept as Catholics). Upon reading I think you probably meant the latter, which does indeed bear a resemblance to Liberal Quakerism in its rejection (or at least marginalization) of the Bible in favor of “personal enlightenment.” Neither Quakers nor Unitarians recognize a central human authority or have a formal creed, which is another similarity as well as two very large, overlapping circles on the Venn diagram of religious beliefs.

If I am reading Unitarian beliefs correctly from the internet, the key distinguishing factor that tells me I am not a Unitarian is that my salvation is based on acceptance of grace from God, not realization of a spiritual journey through works or self-improvement (sincere apologies to any Unitarians here for what I am certain is an incomplete understanding of your religion).

 

[andrewstx]

Historically, I think Fox rejected traditional water baptism (which he did quite vocally) because of the hypocrisy he saw in the established religion around him - essentially, he did not see evidence of a spiritual change occurring with the physical act. Quakers regard treat sacraments, particularly communion and baptism, as a personal and internal experience. Personally, I believe that the New Testament defines “baptizo” as a spiritual immersion as opposed to its mundane meaning in Mark 1:8: “I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” (NIV). I attempt address the part of your question regarding authority below, but the short answer is that Quakers generally believe that authority comes from God alone.

Through the direction of the Holy Spirit. Quakers have attempted to replace the gap left by standardized doctrine with some writings, particularly Faith and Practice which includes pointed questions referred to as “queries” (examples here), but these are not binding and not really the same thing as doctrine. In practice, this has resulted in disagreements between groups and individuals - leading to very frequent splits. “Quaker” is a very broad definition with regard to belief structure.

Yup, I figured it would be good to get the common ground established at the start.

Absolutely not. Christ himself was baptized in water simultaneously as with being baptized with the Holy Spirit. Various individuals in our meeting have chosen to be baptized with water, and their church community has always been supportive of this in my experience. I personally have never been baptized, in the sense of participating in a ritual involving water, but can testify that I am immersed in the Holy Spirit.

Cool! I think most of us could do with more quiet time with God, particularly in our lives where technology and its distractions are so pervasive.

I see Friends as the logical extreme and the end of Protestant theology. Many Protestants especially Evangelical Protestants reduce the sacraments to being only symbolic. But Friends go the whole way and abolish the sacraments completely making everything in Christianity “spiritual” and symbolic.

In some way I don’t understand it sort of works, but I could never convert to the Friends. I have ADHD and silent worship would make me fall asleep.

 

[MartinJordan]

I see Friends as the logical extreme and the end of Protestant theology. Many Protestants especially Evangelical Protestants reduce the sacraments to being only symbolic. But Friends go the whole way and abolish the sacraments completely making everything in Christianity “spiritual” and symbolic.

My sentiments exactly.

MJ

 

[Randy_Carson]

Greetings!

I am new here, and a lifelong Quaker. I thought it would be interesting to offer to answer any questions people had here. A quick forum search makes it appear that Quakers are sometimes used as the example of the antithetical Christian from Catholics, so I am curious to see what folks come up with. Perhaps I will even learn a bit too! Nothing is off the table within the forum rules - my personal experiences and interactions with Catholics, my beliefs and training, you name it!

Looking forward to seeing what you have to ask!

How many of you are there left?

 

[VQR]

Are you aware that, from the earliest days of the Church, Christian Baptism entailed the use of water? My question would be by what authority did the Quakers deem this unnecessary? In other words, would you not imagine that those who were contemporaries of the Apostles received the correct teaching from them on this matter? Or at least, is it not worth considering why the early Church believed it was necessary?

Yes, to my knowledge refusing water Baptism was a radical action in the 17th century. You might be aware of other earlier groups that did not use water, but I am not (I would be interested to know if there were). I find it difficult to put myself into the shoes (sandals) of early Christians to imagine the motivation here. Christ was physically Baptized - which is certainly a good reason to emulate - but I do not see great emphasis placed on Baptism with water as essential. Can you provide an example of early Christians’ thoughts on Baptism with water as an essential part of Christianity?

To answer your last question, yes, definitely worth considering.

I have to tell you how much I appreciate your honest assessment.

From the Catholic perspective, we believe that God did not leave us with a book with which to try and ascertain truth. He left us with a living Church and gave that Church extraordinary authority. The power to bind in heaven what is bound on earth and to loose in heaven what is loosed on earth; the power to forgive sins; and the promise that he would never leave his Church and would send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. Our faith in our Church rests on our faith in Christ and his promises.

This sounds very similar to my own belief system. I also believe that God did not leave us alone with a book to try and ascertain truth. The big difference is that the church is the body of believers, local rather than centralized; and the guidance from the Holy Spirit begins with the individual, bottom up rather than top down.

 

[VQR]

I see Friends as the logical extreme and the end of Protestant theology. Many Protestants especially Evangelical Protestants reduce the sacraments to being only symbolic. But Friends go the whole way and abolish the sacraments completely making everything in Christianity “spiritual” and symbolic.

While I respectfully disagree that we make everything symbolic, I would posit that it is more honest to do away with physical sacraments completely than to keep them halfheartedly.

In some way I don’t understand it sort of works, but I could never convert to the Friends. I have ADHD and silent worship would make me fall asleep.

Funny story. In high school I invited a Christian friend to our church one week, but did not warn her that there would be ~15 minutes of silence. Being a 15ish year old girl, she was basically bouncing out of her pew by the end - very happy to get to stand and sing.

 

[VQR]

How many of you are there left?

A few hundred thousand, with more in Kenya than in all of North America. We have a sister church outside of Nairobi, and a close connection to Friends groups in Rwanda and Burundi.

 

[Starrsmother]

This is just a question–meant respectfully I assure you–but I’m curious. Have you ever considered other faiths than yours and had any doubts, concerns, etc about being a Quaker? I am a “cradle Catholic” but will admit that I did this for a period until through a number of things I became convinced and came back “home”. I know how it is to learn a religion at your mother’s knee so to speak. Maybe it’s easier to stay with a religion that seems to have few actual ground rules or beliefs. I’m just curious

 

[VQR]

This is just a question–meant respectfully I assure you–but I’m curious. Have you ever considered other faiths than yours and had any doubts, concerns, etc about being a Quaker? I am a “cradle Catholic” but will admit that I did this for a period until through a number of things I became convinced and came back “home”. I know how it is to learn a religion at your mother’s knee so to speak. Maybe it’s easier to stay with a religion that seems to have few actual ground rules or beliefs. I’m just curious

I have been consistently confident in my choice of Christianity throughout my life. Since I consider all denominations that accept Jesus as the sole source of grace to be Christians and recipients of salvation, my choice of Quaker as a denomination is not a source of much stress for me. I went to a non denominational high school that was predominantly attended by Baptists (along with a couple of Catholics). Its curriculum was certainly not Quaker-centric, so I think it would be fair to say that I had ample opportunity to consider other denominations.

Our church youth group also spent a summer discussing other denominations, which included a visit from and discussion with a Catholic friar (I have been trying to remember which order, and cannot, sorry. I also am not 100% positive that “friar” is the correct term.) and joining him for a Mass the following Sunday.

 

[JRKH]

I disagree that with that assessment regarding Quakers and Matthew 18:17. The Greek word translated as “Church” in this verse does not necessarily connote a central authority, for example it is commonly translated as “assembly” in Acts 19:32. I cannot speak for the “atheist Quaker” congregation as to whether they followed this direction, but it is the model practiced by my meeting.

Yes - the Greek Ekklesia Does indeed mean assembly - and a specific type of assembly - and if this were the bible reference available I would agree with you. However - when you tie Mt 18:15-18 in with Acts 15, John 13:34-35 and the many references ins the Epistles that exhort Christ’s disciples to a profound unity…the overall picture is quite different.
The “central authority” that you (and many protestants) believe exists is really nothing more than the logical and organic development of the Early Church’s desire to comply with this call to unity.

Again speaking for myself. The scriptures (meaning for me the Protestant Bible, can of worms opened I am sure) are holy, unique, and worthy of study.

So, since you are only speaking for yourself here, are you indicating that not all Quakers hold to Scripture as “holy, unique, and worthy of study”? I just want to be clear.

Other writings are also worthy of study but an a different level, all equally fallible. Specifically, writings by Fox or other famous Quakers are not considered to be of greater value or “holier” than writings by non-Quakers. I think this encompasses the spirit of Sola Scriptura as I understand it from Googling.

OK…

Just to let you know - I agree with the concept that we can have a direct encounter with God - in fact we should do what we can to prepare ourselves for such an encounter.

Where we seem to have difference is in how we deal with these things.
I’m sure you agree that the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion…and that if one person believes they are told that water baptism is necessary and another believes they are told that it is NOT necessary…there is a problem. One of these messages was not from God.
Jesus recognized this would be an issue and this is the reason He instructed us to tell it to the Church and listen to the Church. Something we see implemented in Acts 15.

The impression that I am getting is that the Quaker view takes private revelation to such a degree that it totally negates “church” at all in any real, cohesive sense…

Maybe I’m still misunderstanding…

Peace
James

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, to my knowledge refusing water Baptism was a radical action in the 17th century. You might be aware of other earlier groups that did not use water, but I am not (I would be interested to know if there were). I find it difficult to put myself into the shoes (sandals) of early Christians to imagine the motivation here. Christ was physically Baptized - which is certainly a good reason to emulate - but I do not see great emphasis placed on Baptism with water as essential. Can you provide an example of early Christians’ thoughts on Baptism with water as an essential part of Christianity?

John 3:5 seems to address it pretty clearly:

• “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”*

To answer your last question, yes, definitely worth considering.

This sounds very similar to my own belief system. I also believe that God did not leave us alone with a book to try and ascertain truth. The big difference is that the church is the body of believers, local rather than centralized; and the guidance from the Holy Spirit begins with the individual, bottom up rather than top down.

But Christianity was never constructed from the bottom up. It is a matter of being sent: Christ was sent by the Father, and just as he was sent, so he sent the Apostles with his own authority who then ordained bishops and sent them to various regions of the world. The Apostles instructed the local Churches to not listen to anyone other than themselves or those whom they had sent. When there were issues, they were to go to the Church to have them settled. There was a definite hierarchical structure put in place from the beginning, and it was top down, not bottom up. This was done in order to preserve and protect the deposit of faith received from Christ and given to the Apostles. Individuals were called to conform their lives to this truth found only in the Church (the “pillar and foundation of truth”). These individual members, then, are in turn sent to spread the Gospel to the world and to evangelize.