quakers: So what are your own requirements for be

Because you're funny and kind. (

flynd) wrote in

quakers,
@ 2008-05-01 07:12:00

So what are your own requirements for being a Quaker? What do you, personally, believe a Quaker must believe or not believe, how they must act or speak?

Customize

(Post a new comment)

peaceofpie
2008-05-01 12:36 pm UTC (link)

I believe that a Quaker must believe that they are a Quaker.

That's pretty much my only requirement. My belief, which to me is a Quaker belief, is that each person defines their own belief system on their own, and that a diverse religious community works to embrace (or at least accept) every unique interpretation of the faith tradition, even when it is challenging. That's what I love about the Quaker belief system I have...it's based on meeting people where they are, not where I think they "should" be. I learn much more that way.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	^ this! bolli_bolshevik 2008-05-01 02:55 pm UTC (link)
	Couldnt have put it better myself, i agree 100% :) I am not sure what is to be gained by trying to nail down a definition other than to create 'them v us' or 'otherness' which is the first step in ostracising people. surely we are all Friends together? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: ^ this! kibbles 2008-05-01 06:58 pm UTC (link)
	So there are no standards then? What unites us? What makes someone a Quaker other than "I said so"? Why bother, then? What if Bush declared himself Quaker today? What would you think, if anything? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: ^ this! bolli_bolshevik 2008-05-01 09:22 pm UTC (link)
	Your president can do and say as he pleases (and obviously does) it isnt for me to judge who is Quaker and who isnt. I would love it if he did declare himself Quaker, then maybe the Advices and Queries of Friends might help guide him in a more peaceful manner. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: ^ this!

stafferchick
2008-05-01 09:30 pm UTC (link)

but wouldn't that sort of go against the whoever wants to call themselves a Quaker can thing?

If we're going to have a committee to help guide him in some belief that we hold, then that's having him conform to us, rather than this all inclusive notion...

I'm not trying to start an argument with this...

I think there needs to be some sort of underlying thing that, as kibbles put it, unifies us as Quakers more so that us all calling ourselves that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: ^ this! bolli_bolshevik 2008-05-01 10:47 pm UTC (link)
	"but wouldn't that sort of go against the whoever wants to call themselves a Quaker can thing?" I do not see how, i am saying he can call himself what ever he likes :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: ^ this! kibbles 2008-05-01 09:45 pm UTC (link)
	Ah but what if the only thing he did was declare himself Quaker? What if he didn't act any more peaceful or concerned about any of the testimonies? Or, what if he started redefining Quakerism to suit his needs? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: ^ this! bolli_bolshevik 2008-05-01 10:49 pm UTC (link)
	Just because one person defines their faith one way doesnt mean i have to accept it as an interpretation of mine, so in your extremely unlikely hypothetical case, your president can (and as i say does) suit himself, it makes no effect on my Quakerism. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: ^ this! kibbles 2008-05-01 11:55 pm UTC (link)
	And by that time then, is there even a Quakerism? It is so diluted, it becomes meaningless, I feel. The community is gone, since there is an intent to ignore it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	batswing 2008-05-01 04:47 pm UTC (link)
	Very well said, and thankyou! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	flynd 2008-05-01 12:57 pm UTC (link)
	I believe a Quaker must believe in the equality of all people, regardless of characteristics (physical, emotional, mental) or creed. They must believe that the experience of G/god is accessible to all. I'd like to add something about Christ, but I don't feel that it's essential. (Reply to this)

Attend Meeting for Business if at all Possible

elainegrey
2008-05-01 02:31 pm UTC (link)

I'm not sure Quakerism is about belief. My experience of Quakerism is that it is about faith (which is different than belief) and practice. Do you have faith that a group of people can listen and hear a guidance to be in the world? Do you practice that?

I personally believe that guidance comes from the Divine, and that it accessible to people who don't identify the source as Divine, and can be voiced by people who don't share my beliefs.

Do you go to Meeting for Business? Do you wrestle with coming to Unity over a new roof, setting aside money for scholarships to events, or whether the directory should be annual or every other year?

The sacrament of coming to Unity, of letting go of one's own decision making principles and listening for the Unity in a group, is an exercise, a practice of faith, challenging and great. And if it is not practiced on the mundane -- whatever that is -- the community will not be ready to practice when the calling is there.

I believe myself that there are no mundane decisions: that one never knows when one is acting out in a way that serves as an answer to another's prayer or nudging the world into a change towards -- to use the traditional language -- the Kingdom of Heaven.

When i participate in Meeting for Business with people who have vocally expressed very different understandings of the Divine (or absence of God), and i witness them Practicing the same listening for the decision, i recognize that my wisdom is insufficient to define how the Mystery of God can move in other's hearts and minds. If i think of it as God moving through me and another wants to talk about chemical receptors and brain architecture and another names the Divine in different ways, but we all have the faith to show up month after month to serve the Society and the world (and what i see as the Divine and another might name as Christ and so on) -- i *believe* we best serve that ideal which i name as being the hands of the Divine in this world, making manifest that Love, and i believe that is what membership in the Religious Society of Friends requires.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Attend Meeting for Business if at all Possible

kibbles
2008-05-01 03:09 pm UTC (link)

I am glad you said "Faith" and "Practice" because that is my guidelines, personally, and I think even more so because I don't have a local Meeting. I could not attend Meeting for Business, as the Meeting that oversees (not the right word) our group is 90-120 minutes away by car! So I try to go by what I read in the various Faith and Practices (mostly the London one because that is what I have a copy of, although sometimes I read the NYYM one online.)

And since there is less opportunity for me to come to agreements with groups, I try to use my group ideals in non Quaker groups. To listen respectfully, to make myself heard clearly, to communicate truthfully (VERY hard when you want to schmooze).

I guess what I am saying is I am making my own community, and making my Quaker mark in non Quaker communities, since having an exclusively Quaker community in my geographical situation is not only less possible, but less of an impact on my life BECAUSE of the size and relative 'lack of influence' of the group. Our biggest problem is where to meet, and we've been wrestling with it for years, since I moved here, and I still give input and listen to others and try to find a solution with them. It's like dealing with my kids and their therapy. Go on go on go on go on go on. Eventually we'll get an answer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

stafferchick
2008-05-01 02:38 pm UTC (link)

I feel like this topic could cause some.. discomfort?.. among us...

however, despite that, I'll still join in.

I tend to appreciate what the founding members had intended for the group.
I, personally, have an extremely hard (near impossible) time separating God from Quakerism. The Inner Light (Inner Christ as some have put it), to me, is "that of God within us all"... therefore the equality, pacifism and all that just follow with that.
And I do feel that Christ has a place, though I'm not quite sure what that is...

personally, I tend not to (or at least try very hard not to) use the word "belief" unless I'm dead-set in it. Beliefs are hard to change, people die for them. So I try to be cautious of how I use them.
Again, this is just my own personal habit and thought -- something I happened to pick up from Kevin Smith.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	flynd 2008-05-01 03:55 pm UTC (link)
	I posted it because it seems necessary - some people don't consider Quaker-pluses to be Quakers - so what is a Quaker? I'm trying to spark discussion and understanding, not argument. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	tegdoh 2008-05-01 04:48 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think discomfort is necessarily a bad thing. Often we need to be jolted out of our comfort zones to really approach understanding. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	stafferchick 2008-05-01 04:55 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think it's a bad question to ask. And I did realize that your intentions were good with it. just sort of stating the obvious as I sometimes do. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	paraleipsis 2008-05-01 05:12 pm UTC (link)
	I would have a hard time understanding the position of someone who self-identified as a Friend but repudiated the idea of peace or nonviolence. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	flynd 2008-05-01 05:23 pm UTC (link)
	Is that nonviolence absolute? Without getting too far into the hypothetical, is violence justified or excusable in any situation? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

we talked about this a bit in my Meeting's Quaker Thought discussion this past First Day!

songquake
2008-05-01 06:53 pm UTC (link)

Barclay (the only quaker to publish a systematic theology, though it was in the 17th century and contradicts what many individual Friends would profess right now) would say that the nonviolence is absolute, because we are supposed to be focussing our concentration upon God rather than on the concerns of the world. Barclay said that this is why there are Magistrates, who aren't real Christians, anyway.

as i mentioned, many Friends take issue with Barclay's stance on the matter (i, for instance, think it's total abdication of our responsibility to the reign of God to let others do harm in my name, and also feel strongly led to protect not only vulnerable persons but vulnerable environments), but the peace testimony is so ingrained that (for the most part) Friends make a concerted effort to refrain from all forms of violence -- believing that Christ has taken away all occasion for war, or believing that the principle of there being That of God in every person means that to kill/harm another is to kill/harm the Divine Presence.

that said, there have historically been Friends who have been led in other directions -- Friends who felt led to engage in the conflicts of WW2 or the American Civil War. i imagine that much prayer contributed to these decisions. i also imagine that at time individual Friends have fallen short in their observation of the Peace Testimony, as individuals fall short in our observation of any testimony (we'd be so boring if we were perfect!). but for the most part, we refrain from violence, taking the sermon on the mount so seriously that many would not engage in physical self-defense, even.

in any event, i think

paraleipsis's emphasis regarding "repudiation" is an important one. i totally agree that repudiation of the Peace Testimony would make it hard for me to recognize someone as a Friend; same for the rest of the testimonies (simplicity, community, integrity, equality). that said, i would not expect a Friend to have the exact same interpretation or practice of any of the testimonies as i have.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: we talked about this a bit in my Meeting's Quaker Thought discussion this past First Day!

flynd
2008-05-01 07:10 pm UTC (link)

Oh, that's a very good point (repudation). So much for reading comprehension.

I'd imagine that there are times (as you said) when a Quaker can be called to war, or even a more personal conflict. We as humans are bound to make more ... inconsistant choices than religion can possibly anticipate. I take Quakerism as a religious stance to do what you must, much in the way of that famous Fox apocrypha to wear the sword as long as you can.

This discussion - overkill or no - has helped me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

funnel101
2008-05-01 07:12 pm UTC (link)

I really feel that each person must answer this for him or herself. That being said, for me the core Quaker belief is that each individual can access the Divine without an intermediary. If one is nontheist, then substitute something like "that which unites all people" or the Buddhist concept of the "inner Buddha", etc. If one believes that and finds that practice of silent waiting to be helpful, then I would be comfortable calling that person a Quaker.

I also feel that a Quaker is someone who tries to live up to our Testimonies, though each individual may interpret the Testimonies differently.

Like I said, though, I really feel each person has to answer this question for him or herself. These are only the answers which have worked for me.

(Reply to this)

engelhardtlm1
2008-05-01 09:07 pm UTC (link)

I think I'm probably the "hardliner" on this one... but I'm used to that. :-)

A while back, my then-fiancee-now-wife started calling herself a Quaker. I told her she wasn't allowed to do that until she read my YM's Faith and Practice and found that she agreed with it. She read the parts that I suggested and said she agreed. So, I let her call herself Quaker then.

Now, that's a slippery requirement, seeing as different YMs have different Faith and Practices, and some would contradict. (For example, my YM allows for water baptism and physical taking of communion, and offers leniency on pacifism. Some more traditional YMs would deny both of these.)

So, here's my requirement: You have to be able to answer the question "What kind of Quaker are you?"

Then, we just need to train everyone to ask that question whenever they hear someone say "I'm a Quaker." It would prevent a lot of confusion.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

kibbles
2008-05-01 11:58 pm UTC (link)

Funny thing is I feel in my heart I would identify with Iowa Yearly Meeting the most, but haven't experienced worship, or much communication with them. I have no outward objections to the Faith and Practice of my group's orientation (Liberal, we are under the care of Madison, WI MM) but feel that the umbrella of FGC is not quite home.

I do think I know enough and agree with enough to consider myself Quaker. Perhaps "Unprogrammed Quaker" would be a more appropriate title for me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

Advertisement

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs