Wait what? Quakers?

[nateswift]

religioustolerance.org has the best breif write up I have seen. Briefly, Friends are divided into three basic categories, Conservative, Liberal and Evangelic. The Evangelic are by far the most numerous both here in the US and Africa, Liberal in Great Britain. Conservative is least in numbers in the US. Evangelical might be hard to distinguish from, say Methodists. Conservative and Liberal both depart from the given description of "Anabaptist" in that we hold scripture as second to the experience of the Spirit as verified by "the fruit of the spirit and the tempering influence of the body, both local and as a whole. Liberals tend to be more concerned with social justice issues and environmental causes and both Liberal and Conservative do not hold with professional clergy, though pastors (a job description, not a title) may be recorded by their Yearly Meeting (Monthly Meeting is the name for the local congregation based on the "Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business" and the Yearly Meeting is the loose organization of a general area such as Oregon, Washington and Idaho.
Happy to answer questions.

 

[miracle66]

The Society of Friends runs many courses theologically today. Celtic Rose expressed it quite beautifully.... One group I've had dealings with is quite evangelical , "Friends United Meeting"

 

[VolRaider]

One of my ancestors founded Friendsville ,TN , which started out as a Quaker settlement. He helped "conduct" the Underground Railroad. If that's a cult, then I guess cults ain't that bad after all.

 

[merryheart]

I was surprised to find quaker lumped in with anabaptist since they do not value the (physical) rite of baptism (or any of the sacraments)

 

[CelticRose]

I was surprised to find quaker lumped in with anabaptist since they do not value the (physical) rite of baptism (or any of the sacraments)

No, but they are both *Peace* churches. which is why they got lumped together.

 

[nateswift]

I was surprised to find quaker lumped in with anabaptist since they do not value the (physical) rite of baptism (or any of the sacraments)

Most of the bases of belief are shared and the idea that sacraments have no value in themselves and should not be either required or depended on is really not all that important. That some Quakers think they should not be used at all is a bit of overreaction to abuses.

 

[merryheart]

I have been reading a lot about Quakers recently. It began when I found that I have Quaker ancestors, and then later I found myself on the FCNL distribution list, and agree with their stances on things pretty much down the line. That sparked an inquiry - and I actually found this thread by searching Quaker on CF.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Daniel Boone was a Quaker as was his family. His uncle (or grandfather?) George Boone, who was a Quaker, was the personal secretary to William Penn (founder of Philadelphia and has a state named after him) who was Quaker too.

Quakers have a long history in the US and initially were closer to the Anabaptists in a number of things. Recent years have seen changes in some of the faith groups.

For this forum, views expressed by Quakers would need to comply with the site Statement of Faith, even if the Quakers do not like creeds.

 

[nateswift]

Know whatcha mean. When I started reading about Quaker beliefs and perceptions I felt like I had come home. I think a lot of s have Quakers back there somewhere. I found some on one side of the family in early Mass. and my grandmother on the other side used to tell about her grandfather when she was on his lap pretending she was going to pull his long white beard saying, "Thee hadn't better."

 

[merryheart]

Daniel Boone was a Quaker as was his family. His uncle (or grandfather?) George Boone, who was a Quaker, was the personal secretary to William Penn (founder of Philadelphia and has a state named after him) who was Quaker too.

Quakers have a long history in the US and initially were closer to the Anabaptists in a number of things. Recent years have seen changes in some of the faith groups.

For this forum, views expressed by Quakers would need to comply with the site Statement of Faith, even if the Quakers do not like creeds.

Nice. I'm actually a descendant of Quakers on another branch too, then --- Daniel Boone's personal secretary married some great great aunt or something like that.

 

[hedrick]

I believe the OP meant by "cult" anyone who doesn't hold what he considers essential doctrines. It's a definition that is fairly commonly used. E.g. many conservative Protestants consider all non-Trinitarian groups cults.

It's not worth arguing the definition, since the OP hasn't logged in since Dec 2013.

 

[promethius7]

I too was surprised to find Quakers classed alongside Anabaptists. To be a Quaker one must believe in the inherent goodness of mankind and also to want to help others. The need for any Theosophical belief is NOT necessary to the Quakers. They are all about doing good deeds and helping others. Technically one could be Islamic and still join the Quakers!

 

[KENIK]

I too was surprised to find Quakers classed alongside Anabaptists.

I was, too, given Friends (Quakers) do not espouse normally communal forms of life such as the Mennonites and Hutterites.

To be a Quaker one must believe in the inherent goodness of mankind and also to want to help others.

This is incorrect regarding traditional and many, if not most, modern Friends. All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. To correct this mistaken idea one can examine traditional Quaker beliefs by examining Barclay's Apology and other writings by Friends. These works are readily available on the web.

The need for any Theosophical belief is NOT necessary to the Quakers.

Agreed. Friends have no theosophical beliefs, that is to say a need or requirement for any occult meaning or gnosis supposedly needed for salvation.

They are all about doing good deeds and helping others.

Agreed.

Technically one could be Islamic and still join the Quakers!

No. This is not correct. I am puzzled why you are saying this. Could you please explain?

 

[nateswift]

I was, too, given Friends (Quakers) do not espouse normally communal forms of life such as the Mennonites and Hutterites.



This is incorrect regarding traditional and many, if not most, modern Friends. All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. To correct this mistaken idea one can examine traditional Quaker beliefs by examining Barclay's Apology and other writings by Friends. These works are readily available on the web.



Agreed. Friends have no theosophical beliefs, that is to say a need or requirement for any occult meaning or gnosis supposedly needed for salvation.



Agreed.



No. This is not correct. I am puzzled why you are saying this. Could you please explain?

The point on the goodness of man does not negate the realization that everyone blows it from time to time. It is in contrast to the idea that everyone is hopelessly bad naturally, and Quakers as a rule don't buy that. The part about being a muslim and part of the Quaker family is true of some of the liberal branches, though not of conservative or evangelical Quakers.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

The other thing is Quakers (at least the conservative ones) believe Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible is true. It's a subtle but very significant difference.

 

[KENIK]

The point on the goodness of man does not negate the realization that everyone blows it from time to time. It is in contrast to the idea that everyone is hopelessly bad naturally, and Quakers as a rule don't buy that.

I take your point. I think, though, that this would need to be further qualified in that most people that believe in an innate goodness of man believe in a Pelagian self-righteousness apart from God's grace. In this Quakers would disagree. Also, traditional Quakers would not attaint human evil to such an extent (unlike Protestants) to deny a synergistic view of salvation. Traditional Quakers would state that there is a human interaction under and within divine grace that permits the possibility of salvation. They reject Protestant monergism.

The part about being a muslim and part of the Quaker family is true of some of the liberal branches, though not of conservative or evangelical Quakers.

Possibly so, but Muslims are expressly forbidden, unless carefully circumscribed, under Sharia Law to participate in the worship of God by non-Muslims.

The other thing is Quakers (at least the conservative ones) believe Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible is true. It's a subtle but very significant difference.

Agreed.

 

[nateswift]

I take your point. I think, though, that this would need to be further qualified in that most people that believe in an innate goodness of man believe in a Pelagian self-righteousness apart from God's grace. In this Quakers would disagree. Also, traditional Quakers would not attaint human evil to such an extent (unlike Protestants) to deny a synergistic view of salvation. Traditional Quakers would state that there is a human interaction under and within divine grace that permits the possibility of salvation. They reject Protestant monergism.

This is true, however one point to be made is that we believe that the Christ is not limited to the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and that necessary grace is available without knowledge of Jesus as a historic person.

 

[KENIK]

This is true, however one point to be made is that we believe that the Christ is not limited to the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and that necessary grace is available without knowledge of Jesus as a historic person.

Agreed. Our Quaker faith is a salvation based upon grace and not necessarily upon our own knowledge. Our knowledge is always insufficient from the standpoint of grace, hence the need of a Savior.

 

[Agnikan]

The other thing is Quakers (at least the conservative ones) believe Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible is true.

That's the standard belief among Orthodox Christians, too.

 

[Vicomte13]

Quakers believe, above all, that each man and woman is a creation of God and can - and should - communicate directly with the Holy Spirit, and listen to the Spirit. THEREFORE traditional Quakers (sometimes called "Beanites" for reasons internal to their history) do not have any creeds or established doctrines, they merely have forms they follow for their meetings. There is traditionally no pastor, no sermon, no preaching. Decisions are traditionally made by unanimity, as the Holy Spirit comes and "covers" a meeting causing minds to align. When minds don't align, they continue to talk and seek what the spirit may say.

They are opposed to violence in whatever form.

They're not really Protestants - Sola Scriptura, Sola anything...they do not have dogmas. They believe what the Holy Spirit tells them.

What the Holy Spirit has told them, collectively, over the years is:
- Don't show formal honors to men - men are equal before God and SHOULD treat each other as equals beside each other. (Therefore, Quakers got themselves imprisoned and killed in early days for addressing lords and ladies, Kings and judges, as "thou" - the informal form in older English. They would not remove the hat or bow (rendering "hat honors")).
- Everybody is to be treated equally in the marketplace - therefore the single pricing system comes from them.
- Equality of women, and of the spirits of children.
- Humans have no right whatever to apply violence to other humans.
- Therefore, no slavery. (The Quakers in Pennsylvania outlawed slavery in about 1701, but the English Privy Council reimposed it as a "fundamental right of Englishmen".)
- Therefore, when they settled in Pennsylvania, they never fought the Indians, they BOUGHT all of the land they acquired, at fair price (same prices whites would pay for the lands) and included the Indians in all of their religious meetings, charity, etc. (As a result, there were never any violent clashes between the Indians and the Quakers.)

The Friends have a phenomenal track record.