In this post from IAMMYOWNGOD’s latest…thingy, FriendRob mentions involvement with the Quakers. I’ve read a little about the denomination (online only, no serious research) and find it fascinating and not a little…[bitter atheist]moving[/bitter atheist]; it would be really cool to hear from someone who’s actually a part of it. Would there be any Quaker Dopers willing to fight my ignorance, and would anyone else be interested in such a thread?
When I went to church as a teenager, I went to a Friends church, in the southwestern yearly meeting. Their website is broken, rats! I can’t claim to be an expert on Quakers and Quaker history, but I did take it quite seriously at the time and became a member in my own right.
Do you have a specific question or do you just want my impression of things? I’ve noticed at least a few other Quakers here, so hopefully you’ll get several opinions.
Quaker born and raised, and continue to consider myself one, though I don’t belong to a meeting. (Church? :dubious: on the East Coast we call them meetings.)
I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have. I know cartooniverse is a fellow traveler also, though I don’t know if he’s joined a meeting or not.
I belonged to an evangelical branch. It was difficult to distinguish, in many outward respects, from the other Protestants in the area. My parents still attend there, and they’ve even started giving communion with the elements on a monthly basis. :eek: I don’t like the changes, but since I don’t attend there anymore I don’t get to complain much.
Communion? Yikes! I’m used to silent meeting – no preacher, sermon, hymns – and definitely no communion.
oo, replies.
Well, for starters, it seems like there’s quite a continuum of practices. Are most…groups…similar to Protestant churches? And what happens in a “silent meeting”?
I must confess I liked the hymns. We had a choir too, and I sang in it from when I was 14 to about 20. IIRC, I ranted about the changes in the service format and music recently…<pause to search> ah, here it is, Is Your Religious Service turning into a rockshow?
I’ve never gone to a silent meeting, although I would like to. Unfortunately part of the church-choosing negotiation with my conservative Lutheran husband meant he really needed a church with weekly communion with the elements. I’ve gotten used to it, but it still seems weird.
If I understand it correctly, a silent meeting is one where people gather to pray and meditate upon the Lord as a group. If someone is moved to speak, they do so. Some meetings will be entirely silent, others mildly talkative. Where I grew up the last silent meetings were done by people who had grandchildren my age, so it must have been some 40 years previously. (This was in southern California in the 1980s, so 1940s-ish) I do not know why they changed to sermons and hymns.
When I was attending regularly you’d go into church and sit down. There’d be a hymn or two, someone would read some scripture and pray. Another hymn and then time of silence. Another Hymn, the offering (collection) and the Choir would sing. More prayer, and then the sermon, a little more prayer, some announcements and out for donuts and coffee. With the exception of the silent time, it was much like other staid protestant services I have attended.
What I liked best about Quakers was the lack of extra-biblical rules. Nobody from church cared if you went dancing, or to the movies (although movies with sexual content were frowned on). I knew people who drank socially and nobody cared. Too many churches pile up extra rules.
It sounds pretty good to me, coming from a Baptist background.
The tradition I’m familiar with is way out on the fringe from what TDG is describing – only nominally Christian, for one thing. (I was in grad school, studying religion [after getting a BA in Religious Studies], before I realized what Easter was about – “You mean people believe Jesus rose from the dead? Seriously?”)
Services involve people gathering together for whatever version of prayer or meditation (some would call it one, some the other) the individual sees fit. If someone is moved by the spirit to stand up and share, he or she will do so. Sometimes the entire hour will go by with no one saying anything – other times three or four people will speak – it’s not usually a lot more than that. (Except for weddings and memorial services [funerals], where people are a whole lot more likely to share.)
And that’s it.
At the end of the hour, two of the overseers (effectively the elders of the meeting) will shake hands to mark the end of meeting. Everyone will then shake hands with those around them.
When I was a kid, I went to meeting with my Dad most weeks. For kids, we’d sit in meeting for 15 minutes or so (as much as any normal kid can possibly stand), then one of the First Day (i.e., Sunday) school teachers would lead us out and we’d go to a regular First Day School class, where we might talk about moral issues, etc. It’s not a real Biblically-base tradition (in the version I’m familar with).
The Quakerism I’m used to is highly pacifistic (my dad was a CO in WWII, though he later joined the Army and fought in the Battle of the Bulge) and politically liberal. These are values that are central to me and my life, and why I continue to consider myself a Quaker despite not belonging to a meeting.
…which sounds odd to me, as the churches my Christian friends belonged to would impose those kinds of rules. But they weren’t extra-biblical, they were justified with scripture. (Or do you mean truly extra-biblical? Ohnm…) Which leads me to wonder–how do most Quakers see the Bible? Do more Protestant-like people take it literally? twickster, in your tradition, does scripture play a part in a believer’s life at all?
In the tradition I’m familiar with, there’s virtually no reliance on scripture on any kind of day-to-day basis. The fundamental idea is that if you’ll just shut up and listen, you can hear the voice of God (“the inner light”) for yourself. This is the point of silent meeting. The idea that we need another human being (clergy of whatever sort) to mediate that relationship for us is totally rejected. The Bible is regarded as … damned if I know. I’ve still got the copy they gave me in First Day School, so it’s not dismissed, but it’s not regarded as a primary guide of human behavior in any kind of nit-picky sense. (I did have to memorize the Ten Commandments at one point.) You also only rarely hear it cited in meeting. About a month ago I went to the memorial service (funeral) for my BIL’s mother, also a Quaker, and was astonished at how much scripture was read – it turns out the guy doing it was a friend of hers, a former Methodist preacher, and he’d kind of appointed himself to do it. All she’d asked for was a friend of hers from the local meeting to read the 23rd psalm. (Which he did.) The Quakers in the crowd were all totally “WTF with all that Bible?” afterwards.
Please note that this does NOT mean that it’s some kind of anarchistic “if it feels good do it” sort of thing! The authority of the meeting exists, it’s just held by all members in common, not by some elite or clergy. The overseers I mention above are elected by the members, democratically, and serve a specified term. Any members who want to may attend the meeting for business and participate in the discussion and voting.
I’m getting a little OT here – the point I’m headed for is that the meeting operates as a group, and the authority of the meeting resides in the group, with all members of that group participating in decision-making. The goal is to arrive at what’s called “the sense of the meeting,” and reaching that point can be a complete and utter pain in the ass. (Quakers can do passive-aggressive like nobody’s business.) But until that consensus is reached – until all members present are truly okay with the decision – no action can be taken. These actions include practical stuff (should we get the roof on the meetinghouse replaced?), but also stances on political issues, etc. Some of you may recall back in the '60s, a militant black group (CORE? I don’t remember who) demanded reparations from white churches for the sufferings they had undergone under slavery – the Quakers were the only ones to say, “okay, sounds fair.”
Hope this info helps – feel free to ask for clarification on any of this.
Sorry – I wandered rather far afield from your original question, which was about the Bible.
I think the point for Quakers would be that the Bible, though probably divinely inspired, is a document written by human beings, and as such is a form of mediated contact with God – which ain’t what the Quakers are about. Stuff that is truly the word of God – like the Ten Commandments – is taken extremely seriously – esp. that whole “Thou shall not kill” thing – but the other stuff, not really. I’m thinking here of the contrast with Orthodox Judaism (having had a conversation with Scuba_Ben about this last week), all the rules in Leviticus, etc. For us, they wouldn’t really be seen as the unmediated word of God, and one’s own conscience, guided by the rest of the meeting, would take precedence.
The reason we’re seeing posts from people with very different experiences with Quakerism is that there have been several schisms over the centuries.
I don’t remember all the details, so I can’t explain too well. To put things simply, one “branch” of Quakers got caught up in the evangelical/rivival stuff that was going on back whenever that stuff went on. This group, as stated by earlier posters, is rather indistinguishable from other non-Quaker evangelical protestant religions. Since this group has no qualms about proselytizing, and the services are probably more familiar to potential new members, this is now the dominant group, especially in Africa.
The other group isn’t exactly a clone of what Quakerism was back before the schisms, but I’d say it holds more true to certain beliefs that people often associate with Quakerism. The more evangelical group seems to hold more true to traditional Christian beliefs (most of which AFAIK were present in original Quakersim.) This “liberal” group is most common on the US East coast and around college campuses elsewhere.
Aha, I found a link. You can check out some info here if you like.
Sorry, I was out for the long weekend.
From my roots as a Quaker, I’d agree with **twickster’s ** opinion that we’re on opposite ends of the Quaker spectrum. There are some things we agree on, for example, listening for G-d’s voice inside you (sometimes called the still, small voice) is a big part of the tradition. The bit about the children being dismissed for age-appropriate activities was common where I went. I left it out of my initial description because as I was neither a child nor had children what they did wasn’t important to me.
Where I went, the bible was regarded as literal truth (but sprinkled with poetry, allusions and metaphors that were hard to understand). Similar to Luther’s idea of “Read the bible and think for yourself” there was some pressure on everyone in the church to read a bit of the bible everyday and think about it (this is called *quiet time * or daily devotions). More than any other Protestant sect I’ve been exposed to (with the obvious exception of the Messianic Jews) we studied the old testament.
What I meant when I wrote about extra-biblical rules, is that many other protestant sects I’ve been exposed to seem to pile up rules on things you must or must not do to be a good Christian. Many of these rules can be justified with scripture, but as Shakespeare wisely pointed out every fool in error has a verse of scripture to back him up. Just as an example, many of my protestant/catholic friends are faintly horrified by the idea that I’ve never been baptized in water. I don’t think anyone’s conversion experience depends on being sprinkled, splashed or dunked. IMHO, and possibly not shared by all Quakers, if the cleansing blood of Jesus’ sacrifice isn’t enough, no water blessed by a human is going to be enough either. As a less controversial example, the scared calendar is pretty much ignored by Quakers. The fasts of Lent and Advent are something I only learned about when I studied medieval history. But, on the other side of this coin, Quakers have traditional pacifism, which can be supported or denied in scripture depending on where you look. There’s also gentle pressure to tithe, support missionaries and fund church schools. Again, all of these activities can be supported or denied in scripture… <shrug>
Thanks, The Devil’s Grandmother, that clears it up.
Erm, another question (arg, why isn’t anyone else curious? Just this one, and then this thread may slip off into oblivion): what’s the range of Quaker attitudes towards evangelism and…outsiders? Do only more evangelical branches actively seek converts? Do people who aren’t Quaker often participate?
Back when I was a full-time Quaker, so to speak, evangelism was a big deal. We were encouraged to bring friends to church and get them converted. The Yearly Meeting (regional division) I belonged to supported overseas missionaries in South and Central America, Africa and (limited parts of) Europe. They also donated money and time to other groups like Missionary Aviation Fellowship (they fly doctors, supplies and missionaries around the world) and The Wycliffe Society (does translation work). There were also many local missionaries, for example, my church had a “mission” in the poorer areas of Los Angeles. We also had a missionary pastor who specialized in working with pro-sports players. :rolleyes: Families and kids were encouraged to “adopt” a missionary family, become pen pals with missionary kids and make directed donations.
Outsiders? Again, when and where I was attending a Friends church, anyone was welcome. Friends prided themselves on being friendly and if you noticed a new person in church you should introduce yourself and say howdy. I can remember a few occasions my parents would invite an unknown person home for lunch on Sundays. I think it is the norm for the whole spectrum of Quakerism to be friendly to people who are interested. One of the early tenets of George Fox’s new sect was to be equal and inclusive. The early Quakers succeed in those ideals to varying degrees, but they did try and we still try. We really need twickster’s opinion here.
Participation of outsiders? As far as I know nobody ever asked if you were a Star Bellied Sneech or not. I have to stop here because my husband’s childhood church does not allow outsiders to participate in communion and I tend to go into sarcasm overload if I think about it for very long.
In the branch of the tradition I know, “no” on evangelism, “yes” on inclusiveness. It’s that whole liberal tolerance thing again – we’ll be happy to help you along this particular path to God, if it’s one that resonates with you, but it’s not our place to tell you this is The Path.
Once you’re interested, though – there are no hoops to jump through, with regard to professions of faith, sprinklings of water, or whatever. I’ve never joined a meeting, so I don’t know what all is involved, but I’m pretty sure regular attendance and some kind of conversation with some of the overseers about one’s sincerity would be enough. And if you want to just come and check out meeting a few times and then move on – that’s fine, too.
(BTW, I’m delighted by your interest, and will be happy to answer any questions you have, even if no one else has any.)
My wife is a Quaker, and we were married in the care of the meeting. I don’t have much to add, except that it was a beautiful service. It was much like a meeting. First, there was a few minutes of silence, so folks could become clear. Then folks started to say what was on their mind. They all signed this document stating the basics of our marriage (and their witnessing thereof). It’s a beautiful calligraphy thing. It’s on our dining room wall.
Anyway, it’s a wonderful thing, the Society of Friends, and I wish more people could be like them (no war, period). They were the ones who wanted to make black children were educated when nobody else cared.
I attended a Quaker school in England during my high school years. Most, if not almost all of the students were not Quaker, and the religion was never pushed. (I don’t know if this was common throughout or just because this was a school.) We did have meetings that involved quiet time and reflection with the occasional person being moved to speak. I think I absorbed some aspects by osmosis given my thoughts and attitudes. (I’m mildly religious but fairly anti-institutional.) From my experience I would say the Quakers I was exposed to were open to outsiders, not evangelical, but did support missionaries in Africa.
Oops! I meant …makesure black kids were educated…
Also, I wanted to add that they aren’t exactly booming for a couple of reasons (IMHO):
-
For the most part, they aren’t evangelical and don’t beat the bushes for new members.
-
They are very tolerant, so (IMHO) have been a bit co-opted by people who want religion-lite or are otherwise not particularly welcome in other churches (they have performed gay marriages for a while now). This tends to not attract more conservative types. (good riddance, I say)