Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tyler Hampton on 11th mo. 12, 2009 at 10:10pm

Geoff- That is such a succinct and clear translation of Barclay's propositions.

Jeff- I think Barclay would definitely be the place to start...I also recommend his Catechism and Confession

I feel that theology in the sense of speaking with clarity about our cumulative, corporate knowledge of God is vital to our faith and life together. Theology as an academic exercise can get pretty superfluous in my experience.

-Tyler.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Lyn Lewis on 11th mo. 14, 2009 at 4:58pm

Thank you very much for taking the time to write out this summary, Geoffrey. I am reminded once again to finally get to reading Barclay's Apology.

In Friendship,
Jan Lyn

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Micky Jo Myers on 12th mo. 10, 2009 at 6:20pm

In my humble opinion, Quakerism would work best as this:

The testimonies (peace, integrity, equality, simplicity) would be something we could all agree on, and act as guiding principles. Then the theology (or anything that might fall under “religious”) would be respected as personal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Micky Jo Myers on 12th mo. 10, 2009 at 6:49pm

I am going to use #10 to say I completely disagree with Barclay on 3,5,7,9 and especially 4. :)

If I consider myself Quaker, isn't that enough to make me Quaker? If not, I definitely got to get a seat on that deciding committee.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tyler Hampton on 12th mo. 11, 2009 at 11:42am

Hey Micky, good to see you on here.

All of these things that Barclay tried to systemize came from inward experiences. Personally I can say that the authority of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, my own sinfulness, and God's saving power were things I could have never accepted without the Holy Spirit working on me.

I think one of Barclay (and other early Friends) points is that the Light (Christ's witness in us) is not just a nice thing- There are times when it will be a "searchlight" showing us all of those things we are doing wrong. If we just take #10 by itself it is easy to get too high a view of our individual humanity.

As far as 'what makes a Quaker' that is very hard to say at times, unfortunately. I can't say that I accept the idea that considering oneself a Quaker makes it so. I would ask questions like, 'Have you experienced the power of God in meeting for worship?' 'How has that experience changed you- what specific ways have you been led by the Lord to change your life?' 'Are you accountable to a (hopefully local) body of Friends?' 'Are you at the very least willing to wrestle with the Bible and classic Friends theology?'

Ultimately of course it is your meeting that is 'that committee' when they consider your membership.

-Tyler.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Micky Jo Myers on 12th mo. 11, 2009 at 3:15pm

>>>>>I would ask questions like, 'Have you experienced the power of God in meeting for worship?' 'How has that experience changed you- what specific ways have you been led by the Lord to change your life?' 'Are you accountable to a (hopefully local) body of Friends?' 'Are you at the very least willing to wrestle with the Bible and classic Friends theology?'

I would have to respectfully disagree.

With the first question, why must it be in Meeting? I can't think of anything less Quaker than declaring one locale closer to God than another.

Also, my accountability is to my conscience, which is paired evenly with my Inner Light, making it a higher standard than any pope, or even a body of Friends.

>>>>If we just take #10 by itself it is easy to get too high a view of our individual humanity.

This reminds me a lot of The Crucible:

PARRIS: It is not for you to say what is good for you to hear!

PROCTOR: I may speak my heart, I think!

PARRIS: What are we; Quakers?

Finally I take exception to the suggestion that Barclay is declared “classic Friends theology”. That, for me, is like saying Richmond Declaration of Faith of 1887 is a fair representation of Quaker process and beliefs. Friends may believe as they feel led but you cannot hijack someone’s faith and then set the requirements for everyone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin Kelley on 12th mo. 11, 2009 at 4:51pm

Yes, well, you can take exception as much as you want but it doesn't affect Barclay's importance to Friends.

The kind of hyper-individual theology (I'm a Friend if I want to be and I can believe whatever I want) is a relatively recent phenomenon and is still only confined to the most liberal corners of liberal Quakerism (and not officially: most liberal F&P wouldn't agree). To be a Quaker, technically, is to be a member of the Society of Friends and to be a member of a monthly meeting and a yearly meeting. Those bodies decide what is and isn't official Quaker theology through an involved, Spirit-led process. There is a definition and there are committees.

In the end anyone can call themselves a Quaker--even a multinational corporation, right? While we have official memberships and carefully-discerned books of "Faith and Practice," there competing definitions and no legal force behind any of them. For me, the question boils down to whether the name "Quaker" or "Friend" is really descriptive or not. If one rejects more Quaker theology that one embraces then what exactly the point? When is it more of an appropriated word than an accurate description?

Just the weekly reminder that this site is called QuakerQuaker because it's for those who want to explore what it means to be people who are Friends in both faith and practice. That pretty much means Barclay's nearby on the night stand (even if the bookmark is stuck in the early pages because he's a bit dense!). There's plenty of other internet forums for discussions of hyper-individualistic notions of Quakerism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoffrey Gilmore on 12th mo. 13, 2009 at 3:54pm

But would it be okay for a group of those who share the same theology to get together as a distinct meeting, or should we all try to be part of the same organization? Friends have often lamented the divisions that have occurred within the Society of Friends, but I think that sometimes division may be necessary. While there may have been one definition of what it meant to be a Friend originally, that hasn't been the case for some time, so we now have some groups with strong professions of faith in Christ, some with theology (or lack thereof) considered a personal choice; some meetings with paid clergy, choirs, etc., and others with unprogrammed worship; some meetings that won't allow divorce and remarriage, and others that permit homosexual marriages. If we tried to force everyone back into one organisation, we'd have to instantly have a huge fight over what our group definition was. Or, we could say, there is no group definition, and anyone can join. But what is that quote, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." If you say that a Friends Meeting can't require members to have certain beliefs, or to follow any rules at all, then you are making a choice which is in fact just as exclusive, because it excludes all those who do want to make choices of who they associate with.

That's why I'm glad that there are several distinct versions of what it means to be the Religious Society of Friends. No one else can demand that my meeting must allow non-Christians, prepared sermons, or homosexual marriage; and I don't have to try to persuade other meetings to disown most of their members for not following the rules that used to exist in the whole society, but have been forgotten. Hopefully, we can disagree with each other without thte need for hostility, and God can make use of several versions of the Society of Friends as he sees fit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Carl on 8th mo. 5, 2010 at 12:02am

For me there is a "conversation" between theology and experiential worship.  They each help to inform and give shape to each other.  What would otherwise be mere ideas come profoundly alive through worship.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 8th mo. 5, 2010 at 4:37pm

It isn't, you know, a matter of people "wanting to make choices of whom they associate with."

Personally, I don't think atheists should become members of Quaker Meetings. Several of them were members of my own Meeting for longer than I've been, and they've been perfectly fine people to associate with. And lately a good friend of mine, also an atheist, is applying for membership, and this looks likely to put me in an interesting position!-- which I hope resolves with us still associating.

It would be easier for me to worship with people who didn't consider reliance on God a strange and impractical notion... and I'd expect, then, more of a feeling that our decisions were the will of God, not just the best available compromise between God and Worldly Pseudopracticality. "Quaker" wouldn't seem such a misleading designation for such a group!

God is continually associating with all sorts of people, even me, and even with people who disapprove of couples whom God has made homosexual for whatever inscrutable reasons. Anyone can come to my Meeting and disagree with me all the while we're together, you included! We might think one of us must not be listening well enough to our Teacher... but to an atheist, well, a theist must seem simply crazed or stupid-- self-deceived at best!

That makes for a very strained partnership; but doesn't at all preclude mutual liking and getting along. It makes sense to welcome atheists to attend worship, to find Who they might find. Or not, as it pleases God and them. It doesn't make sense to call them Quakers, any more than claiming that time in a waiting room makes me a doctor!

Objections to other categories of human don't seem so functional, somehow.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page