Talk:Quakers/Archive 1

Undated discussion
1. Should Richard Foster be included among famous Friends? I believe he's the author of Celebration of Discipline, a book about prayer, and other books, and teaches at a Friends college (Friends University??) in Wichita, Kansas. Assuming he is personally a Quaker, I believe he's still relatively well known in Evangelical circles at the very least. --Wesley

I guess the question remains: Is Foster a Quaker? If so, is he "notable"?

2. I don't know who wrote the Quaker article (maybe many different people?), but I think it is really solid, well-informed and balanced. Thanks.


 * Ok, a quick Google search turned up this link: http://www.quakerinfo.com/article1091.html, which says this:
 * Perhaps the best known Quaker in the world today is Richard J. Foster, although many are at most dimly aware that he is associated with the Religious Society of Friends. He is clearly one of the leading contemporary writers and speakers on Christian spirituality. While maintaining his ties with Friends, Foster deliberately speaks to a much broader audience.


 * Looks to me like he's worth adding. I also happen to have enjoyed at least a couple of his books. :-) Wesley

re: non-christian quakers

I feel that the categories programmed/unprogrammed are inadequate. Perhaps a better set would be Universalist, Programmed (is there a better label as some of these would in fact be unprogrammed, i think, and Evanjelical (sp). Our unprogramd meeting has a "programmed" worship group for example.


 * Well, that's an interesting question. If I am not mistaken, I think that Evangelical Quakers have a period of unprogrammed silence in a typical meeting (I'm not positive on this, but this is my recollection).  I am sure you can slice up the Quakers a lot of ways, for example, in the U.S. you have Hicksite, Orthdox, Wilburite, Beanite, and so forth.  The modern liberal/univeralist Quakers are mostly the desecndents of the Hicksite movement (except on the West Coast, where they are mostly Beanites).  It all gets a little confusing.  Programmed and Unprogrammed are two different ways of conducting a meeting, but you have a point that it isn't exactly a perfect way to divide up Quaker meetings.  I'll be honest that yours is the first meeting I've heard of where you conduct both types of meeting (programmed and unprogrammed).  I would have thought that almost all meetings conduct their service one way or the other.  For example, unprogrammed meetings don't have a paid pastor.  So does your programmed worship group have a pastor?  I would be inclined to keep the programmed/unprogrammed division as at least one way to describe the divisions between Quakers, because I think it is important although certainly there are other ways Quakers are divided that could be elaborated on, since they are also elaborate.  Maybe we need a more elaborate history of the various splits that occured in the history of US Quakerism? It is worth pointing out also that in the UK, these divisions don't really exist.  I don't know that there are any programmed Quaker meetings in the UK. soulpatch


 * our "programmed" worship group has scheduled hymns. They sing for 1/2 hour then go into silent worship for 1 hr. They love singing. (They have a piano for accompaniment.) They don't have a paid pastor. Another meetings that I have heard of do things like have a query decided upon by M&C and then read about 10 m into service. These certainly aren't major programming like the official programmed meetings. Within http://www.quakerinfo.com/forum/ I believe I have read of something in the UK about a programmed meeting. They also, I believe, mention unprogrammed meetings in a more christ-centered tradition. Karl


 * Oh, in that case, I've definitely run across that type of "programmed" meeting before. That is really not the same thing as what they have in the evangelical churches, although it isn't technically how a true unprogrammed meeting is supposed to work either.   As for more Christ-centered unprogrammed meetings, they also do exist.  :)  I think that the so-called "Wilburite" meetings are more Christ-centered but unprogrammed, for example.  soulpatch


 * I'm interested in the use of the word "service" to describe Quaker worship. In the UK, I've always had it referred to simply as "meeting" (sometimes subdivided into meeting for worship and meeting for business). "Service" might be an appropriate term to described some programmed worship, but unprogrammed worship (which I believe to be the predominant type in the UK, at least at lower levels) 82.43.172.50 18:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found a couple of good histories of the North American Quaker splits (although neither of them mention the Beanite groups on the West coast, who were probably similar to the "Hicksites" in theology and practice but who have a different origin and history). The histories are at: http://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/amerquakers.html http://www.strecorsoc.org/docs/fracture.html

I was suprised to see you listing a clerk as attending to silent meetings. In all the ones I know it has been M&C. Karl


 * Well, maybe you have a clearer understanding of the role of a clerk than I do. Every unprogrammed meeting I've been to has had a clerk who had what I believed to be an administrative role.  Is this not your understanding of the role of a clerk?  soulpatch


 * The clerk of the meeting will chair business meetings, answer correspondance, etc. The recording clerk records the spirit of the meeting during business meetings. M&C deals with opening/closing and spiritual health of the meeting. Unfortunately, I don't have my quaker faith and practice handy. Unless you know differently, I would list it as M&C. That is what it is in our meeting, and I & my wife are fairly certain in our yearly meeting. Karl


 * No, I don't know better, and I will defer to you on this point, because you are probably much more active than I am. However, I wonder if it might differ from yearly meeting to yearly meeting.  Which yearly meeting are you part of?  My experience (or at least my understanding) with the clerk is that they had a certain role as the representative of the meeting to the outside world.  Also, at the meeting I attend now, the clerk is the one who reads the announcements after the "good mornings" are exchanged at the end of Sunday worship.  That doesn't necessarily mean that they bear any responsibility for the health of the meeting, of course, and I am not saying that I have ever known that to be the case.  The first meeting I attended was so small, it didn't really have any permanent standing committees, so perhaps that wasn't a good example anyway.  The YMs that I have attended monthly meetings for are Pacific, InterMountain, and New England.  But I admit that I am probably less familiar with this matter than you are, so perhaps my understanding is simply wrong on the matter.  soulpatch


 * I am part of Canadian Yearly Meeting. I am a recording clerk. I do not have experience outside of CYM. Our monthly meeting is quite small, and has a certain amount of associated problems. Normally someone of my experience would not be recording clerk. Lets leave it and let someone else do the edit if it needs it. - encourage outsiders to become active :)


 * That sounds fine. soulpatch

''Maybe we need a more elaborate history of the various splits that occurred in the history of US Quakerism? It is worth pointing out also that in the UK, these divisions don't really exist. I have access to a copy of the Pacific Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice'' published in 2001 which contains such an history, pp. 2-9. (PYM is one of the yearly meetings sometimes known as Beanite.) PYM's Faith and Practice is explicitly copylefted on the reverse of the title page with the following statement: ''We gratefully acknowledge the generosity of Friends who have permitted us to use material for this Faith and Practice. In the same spirit, we gladly offer other Friends the use of anything in this book. None of it is copyrighted by Pacific Yearly Meeting. Seven pages is a lot to type in, so I'm adding this entry to this talk page as a reminder for me to look for PYM's Faith and Practice'' online so I can bring the text of this more elaborate history into the discussion later on. Eric Forste 02:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Regarding the origin of the word "Quaker", George Fox in his journal specifically identified Justice Bennet (one of the judges who persecuted him) as the first person to use the word to describe the movement, in 1650. Is there any reason to doubt that this is the origin of the term? soulpatch


 * sounds more authoritative than my entry. Karl

regarding clerk vs. ministry and council (vs overseers)
First, I find this page a great discussion of quakerism.

In the hicksite (liberal) meetings with which I am familiar, including my own, the clerk is responsible for, in essence, recognizing the will of the meeting. That may sound odd, but that's the clerk's primary function in essence. She/He will also function as the primary contact for the meeting, and as a de facto central individual.

The committee of ministry and council, or in the case of my meeting, the overseers, will be the prime contact for spiritual or religious issues. We have a committee of ministry and worship (analagous to the ministry and council) who guide in religious issues, but the closest we have to spiritual guidance (which is still very loose unless it is asked for) is the committee of overseers. Of course, there are the trustees, which handle our property and assets, but that's another matter!


 * In my experience (in medium-sized Hicksite meetings) the clerk's role is to facilitate communication - reading announcements, dealing with correspondence, and most importantly moderating the business meeting and taking the minutes thereof - rather than guiding the meeting in any other way. Ministry & Council (a.k.a. Ministry & Oversight) deals with spiritual guidance and assistance to members, and may read queries etc. during Meeting for Worship and/or choose topics for outside discussion. A worship service can certainly take place with neither a clerk nor any M&C members being present. Both clerks and M&C are volunteer positions, generally nominated for their status as well-respected or "weighty" Friends, and are periodically rotated out. If this all makes sense to all here, shall I make the edit, being sure to acknowledge the wide variety among Meetings? --Hob 10:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

In the Organization section, there were some back-and-forth edits changing M&O to M&C and vice versa. I've updated it to include both names, since both are very widely used. (I used the spelling "counsel" which I believe is more common and somewhat more correct, though I've seen "council" sometimes.) --Hob 18:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Also, I took out the wiki links to the nonexistent articles "Ministry & oversight" and "Religious Society of Friends:Clerk". There is not currently enough material for a whole article on these subjects, until someone digs up some detailed history; and I think the links were poorly named (surely we don't need a whole RSOF: namespace)... but anyone who wants to go ahead and writes the articles can overrule me. --Hob 18:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Peace Testimony
I'm afraid it is a bit simplistic to state "The Peace Testimony is the closest thing to a static testimony. It is also the best known Quaker testimony. In its short form it reads:"

The quoted passage is from the declaration to Charles II in 1661. At the time the Quakers were trying to dissociate themselves from the English Civil War, and specifically from the 5th Monarchists, who were advocating a violent introduction of Christ's kingdom on earth.

While this was in it's beginning a simple statement by several leading Quakers, including George Fox, in quickly became a generally accepted Quaker expression. It is not a "short form" of anything, however, as that would imply a creed or static position. The Quaker peace testimony has evolved significantly over the years. In it's early stages, it was a rejection of violence on a personal level, while recognizing the existance, and in some cases, the necessity, of violence in the world. Early Quaker writings, in Barbados, Rhode Island (during King Phillips war), and elsewhere encouraged the magistrates to do their duty, which may include violence. Through the years, this has evolved to a general rejection of violence on all levels. There is much work to be done investigating this evolution of the quaker peace testimony.

I have a page studying the Quaker Peace testimony through quotes, at least as I see it. Reference http://www.folsoms.net/peace.shtml

I apologize for not appending my name to my previous post regarding clerks v. committees of ministry and council. I am:

Al Folsom alan@folsoms.net


 * Since you seem to be knowledgable on the subject, I think it would be best if you made some changes to reflect that. Please, improve the page. Be bold. --MadEwokHerd 12:38, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

grammar
"  In the midst of this split, the "Beanite" or independent Quakers, who sort of resemble an alloy of Hicksite and Wilburite Quakers, some adopting the label of "Christ-Centered Universalism".   "


 * This is a sentance in the article found at the end of the section here. It is ungrammatical, but I can't fix it easilly, since it appears to be lacking some information and I am only now learning in depth about this topic. Assistance from a capable source would be appreciated :) Sam Spade 02:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I've tidied up the grammar. How factually correct it is I cannot say. Shantavira 17:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

proposed reshuffling from History
I don't want to move lots of stuff without asking, but the transition from "History" to other sections looks wrong to me. I propose to move the second half of the History section, starting with "Early Quakerism was full of a sense of spiritual egalitarianism", to go after the Testimonies section, under a new heading, "Other Practices" or something like that... since the testimonies describe basic principles from which the specific practices are derived. The "Historical Business Meetings" section should probably be merged into that too; it's a bit confusing where it is. I'd like to flesh out the History section some more but right now it's an awkward mix of historical narrative and other things. --Hob 10:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Be Bold! But don't delete if at all possible! Sam Spade 05:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll do this when I get a chance - btw, the stuff you restored just now hadn't been deleted! I had just added a paragraph before it; I guess the wiki diff didn't see that it was the same para, because there were slight textual changes too. So now we've got two of the same paragraph - I'm deleting one of them now, please don't restore it! --Hob 15:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

' Fox was equally critical of many aspects of English culture outside of religious dogma, particularly those that he saw as symptoms of pride and misuse of authority. He saw violence as a corrupting force no matter how noble the goal, and saw Cromwell's military takeover of church and state as a grave spiritual error. Fox's criticisms of his society were similar to those of the Seekers, Ranters, and Levellers, and he drew followers from all of these groups (as well as from dissatisfied members of Cromwell's movement), but differed from them in his urgent call for a revival of what he saw as original Christian faith and practice, based on obedience to God, mutual support, and public resistance to injustice. Fox believed that the proper response to injustice was neither violence nor acquiescence, but peaceful non-cooperation. '


 * where is this then, pray tell? Sam Spade 19:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like it's the fourth paragraph in the History section. older &ne; wiser 19:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Right right, didn't see that for some reason, carry on, thanx. Sam Spade 19:39, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Famous Quakers
I noticed that someone has added brief descriptions to the list at Religious Society of Friends. While there is not a hard-and-fast rule, It seems like we normally don't add such things, since they tend to be uneven (by their very nature) and can be a source of minor conflict, and that infomation should generally live in the appropriate article. I'm proposing that they be removed. What do people think?

Thanks, BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 11:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not unheard of in "list" articles, e.g. List_of_ministers_of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany, but note that in that article the descriptive text is specific to the subject of the article & shows how it applies to each person listed... which isn't true in this case. So I'd support removing the descriptions - but I'd also support moving the whole list to a separate "List of Quakers" article. The RSOF article is getting pretty big. --Hob 16:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh?
''Worship is conducted every Sunday, and business meetings come once a month. Thus a meeting for worship is also known as a Monthly Meeting.''

This doesn't make sense to me. Josh Cherry 01:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty clear to me. Worship occurs every week. Once a month there is a business meeting in conjunction with the weekly worship. The occasions when monthly business meetings occur are known as a Monthly Meeting. older &ne; wiser 01:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I was genuinely confused by this, and I suffer from no major cognitive deficiencies. So the weekly worship things are not meetings?  In any case, the text says "X happens every week.  Meetings for Y happen once a month.  Therefore a meeting for X is known as a Monthly Meeting."  This will leave some readers wondering "don't they mean 'Therefore a meeting for Y is known as a Monthly Meeting'?" The following sentence helps a little, but it's after the fact.  Why not just make it clearer? Josh Cherry 02:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, I suppose it could be written more clearly. Be bold. older &ne; wiser 02:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, I be bold. But I make sure I have the facts straight first.  Are the weekly worship things not meetings? Josh Cherry 03:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see, folks gathered together for a purpose--I suppose that could be called a meeting. 'Course, I'm not really sure if they actually do call it that. But I'm pretty sure someone else will update it if you get something not quite right. older &ne; wiser 03:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Ahh the phrasing of Quaker Meetings. Let's see if I can help this any- The word meeting can be subsituted by church, to say "I am going to go to meeting(church)". It can also be the service, to say "I didn't speak during meeting today". It can also be the monthly meeting, or business meeting, like "During monthly meeting today, we decided to pay 2000 dollars for landscaping". The weekly worships are normally called meetings- but once a month, in addition to your weekly worship, there is also "Monthly meeting" or a business meeting. Now don't get me started if you have to go to regular meetings before and after the service ;) Lyellin 09:18, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I just tried to clear it up- see if that is any better. Lyellin 09:25, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, it's not the event of meeting for worship that's referred to as a monthly meeting; it's the unit of organization. The local meetinghouse for a particular area is where people generally meet for worship once a week, and meet for business once a month - so it's a monthly meeting as far as the business of the Society is concerned.  A larger area will have a quarterly (business) meeting made up of several monthly meetings in that area; to conduct the business of an even broader area, there's a yearly meeting.


 * This is another thing where phrasing varies. In my home meeting I can say "The Monthly meeting", which would refer to Horsham Friends Meeting, the unit. I could also say "the Quarterly Meeting", which would refer to Abington Quarter. On the other hand, I could say "I'm going to monthly meeting", refering to the business meeting, or "I'm going to Quarterly Meeting", refering the 4-times a year business meeting of the Quarter. Lyellin 09:57, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the same thing I was trying to say. What I meant to emphasize was that if I normally attend, say, Brooklyn Monthly Meeting, I would not say "I'm going to the monthly meeting" if I was going to (weekly) Meeting for Worship at Brooklyn MM.  That's mostly to address Josh Cherry's question above. --Hob 04:11, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yea- I was just trying to make sure I said everything clear- It's confusing sometimes, so I wanted to clarify again. As long as we all agree. :-) Lyellin 10:38, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've edited the Organization section again to try to clarify the weekly/monthly/quarterly/yearly thing; the previous text still seemed unclear on the (admittedly confusing) usage of "Meeting" as an organization unit vs. an event, and it left out quarterly meetings. --Hob 18:33, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Nixon, Dave Matthews, etc
We'eve included Richard Nixon who was born/raised Quaker, but I believe converted (to born again christian?), later in his life. On that precedent, would including Dave Matthews, who grew up in a QUaker household, but who now fluctuates between Quakerism and Agnosticism, be appropiate? Lyellin 10:46, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about Dave Matthews, but "fluctuates between Quakerism and agnosticism" would describe a very sizable proportion of the membership of many meetings...


 * Very true... Lyellin 15:30, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * As for Nixon, he didn't convert to anything, he just palled around with Billy Graham a lot as part of his outreach efforts to religious conservatives. He continued to call himself a Quaker (when anyone asked) to his dying day, though it was unclear - to put it mildly - what this meant to him, in light of his policies w/r/t war and truth. --Hob 13:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh? I had thought at some point I heard he converted. Good to know he continued to call himself Quaker. *shrugs* Lyellin 15:30, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)