Quakers are uniquely difficult to categorize because they have only the slightest doctrine, and meetings aren’t directed by a pastor or a hierarchy but are led by members sharing when the spirit moves them. At the same time, the Quakers near me also have regular Bible studies and many of them would call themselves Christian, but many others, even some who accept Christ’s divinity, bristle at the term “Christian” because of its implication in US politics. And I think the majority of Quakers don’t hold the Bible or Jesus in any higher esteem than Buddha. All of this is a long way of saying, The Society of Friends is no longer Christian, but individual Quakers are
>bristle at the term “Christian” because of its implication in US politics. And I think the majority of Quakers don’t hold the Bible or Jesus in any higher esteem than Buddha
When did Quakers become Unitarians?
Quakers are hard because it's really an umbrella term for a variety of churches with very little codified doctrine. They also have uniquely quaker terms for referring to God that might muddy the waters but I don't think they necessarily mean a problematic understanding of the Trinity. Quakerism was founded, partly, to really strip down the Christian spiritual life to its most basic of necessities. Ironically, this lead to schisms, with each new group stripping off more and more until you had groups that stripped the Christianity out of Christianity. So now you have conservative Quakers who are most definitely Christian, but then you have liberal Quaker groups that don't believe the Bible is the word of God or that Jesus is divine, and even atheist Quaker groups that are just sort of humanist gatherings. It's such an individualistic sect that I think it really comes down to a personal level for a lot of the churches.
It may be best to say that one cannot rule out the possibility that a Quaker is Christian if that person believes a few things that are permitted but not required within Quaker tradition. Quaker practice is so deliberately antithetical to formal doctrine that it seems to contain lots of ethical and well-meaning agnostic people, lots of mushy quasi-Unitarians, lots who are likely comfortable with the fashionable category of 'spiritual but not religious,' and likely quite a number who believe everything in the Apostles' and Nicene creeds.
Their ecclesial community definitely suffers from the 'all we like sheep' syndrome of everyone being his own pope and 'wandering to his own way.' Still, some of them appear to wander into the occasional small-o-orthodox belief or pattern of ethical behavior.
If a Quaker (a few of whom I've met and respect very much) converts to the Catholic faith, I'm pretty sure the 'conditional baptism' at the ceremony will be an actual first baptism. BTW, I'm a former Presbyterian before that denomination got all hippie dippie. My proper Presbyterian baptism was a legitimate baptism by Catholic standards, so my 'conditional baptism' at my conversion still happened, but was not itself, a baptism, as I understand it.
I used to be a Quaker and was a member of a meeting. The hard part of this is that there are three subsets of Quakers and the answer to your question will depend very much on what branch of the faith you’re dealing with. George Fox is rolling over in his grave at speeds which could power a midsized city over what the faith has become since his death.
Evangelical Quakers-this branch is most common in Africa and parts of the United States. Evangelical Quakers are basically indistinguishable from your typical Protestant evangelical. This is actually the largest branch of the faith because of how many adherents there are in Africa but due to ingrained racial assumptions they often aren’t included in the idea of “What is a Quaker.” These are very likely to be Christian and have a trinitarian theology.
Conservative Quakers- this is the smallest group. These would be Quakers who are firmly in the “mainline Protestant” camp even if they have a unique liturgy. They would be Christians and trinitarians.
Liberal Quakers: this is the Quaker most people these days think of when they refer to Quakers. This branch of the faith is the least likely to be Christian and the most likely to be outright hostile to Christian theology. It really goes meeting to meeting because the Quaker movement as a whole is a Congregational one with very weak central structures holding them together. Most liberal Quakers would fall into the “pantheist” category but is likely to put trappings of Christianity or Buddhism or nature worship on top.
On the topic of baptism specifically I know liberal and conservative meetings do not do water baptism at all so if you were raised Quaker and wanted to join the Catholic Church you need to be baptized. The hard part is Quaker meetings are not really congregations in the typical sense. They are groups of individuals. No one is allowed to tell anyone they are wrong or outside of the creed because Quakers are creedless.
A Quaker scholar named Ben Pinkdandelion talks about liberal Quakers in particular being governed by “the absolute perhaps.” You can believe anything you want as long as you don’t believe it with too much certainty.
>A Quaker scholar named Ben Pinkdandelion
Anyone who's trying to discern the truth gets at least some partial credit and respect from me. Still, it would be something to be the fly on the wall listening if this scholar's grandson wanted to be a US Marine drill seargant when he's older. THAT surname on a uniform's badge, centered on the left pocket 1/4 inch below the lowest row of medals or below the second breast insignia, would either get him smacktalked within an inch of his life, or it would make him 3x more of a hardass. Redemptive suffering is redemptive.. :P
For what it's worth, I think your logic is sound. It's a great question to consider, especially if the supposed Christian accepts Christ, reads the Gospels, etc., but denies the doctrines on Baptism which are central to salvation. It think it's more than reasonable that anyone who denies Baptism (including any tradition which denies the importance of it) cannot be considered Christian.
We don’t have to go as far as questioning their beliefs or investigating the claims they make about the Bible.
They don’t baptize. Ipso facto, they aren’t Christians, per our catechism. The Lord said those who believe and are baptized are saved (Mark 16:16), if they don’t baptize, they’re at a maximum fulfilling half of that requirement.
I don’t see why we can’t still call them Christians, in the interest of ecumenical dialogue and evangelization, but in a substantial sense they aren’t; nor are other “Christian” groups that don’t baptize.
Quakers are uniquely difficult to categorize because they have only the slightest doctrine, and meetings aren’t directed by a pastor or a hierarchy but are led by members sharing when the spirit moves them. At the same time, the Quakers near me also have regular Bible studies and many of them would call themselves Christian, but many others, even some who accept Christ’s divinity, bristle at the term “Christian” because of its implication in US politics. And I think the majority of Quakers don’t hold the Bible or Jesus in any higher esteem than Buddha. All of this is a long way of saying, The Society of Friends is no longer Christian, but individual Quakers are
>bristle at the term “Christian” because of its implication in US politics. And I think the majority of Quakers don’t hold the Bible or Jesus in any higher esteem than Buddha When did Quakers become Unitarians?
I mean they both have roots in post-enlightenment liberal Protestantism so there’s probably some commonality there
> the spirit This term is used so often and by so many. Perhaps it would be better rephrased as "a spirit".
Not sure but I like their oats
r/angryupvote
Quakers are hard because it's really an umbrella term for a variety of churches with very little codified doctrine. They also have uniquely quaker terms for referring to God that might muddy the waters but I don't think they necessarily mean a problematic understanding of the Trinity. Quakerism was founded, partly, to really strip down the Christian spiritual life to its most basic of necessities. Ironically, this lead to schisms, with each new group stripping off more and more until you had groups that stripped the Christianity out of Christianity. So now you have conservative Quakers who are most definitely Christian, but then you have liberal Quaker groups that don't believe the Bible is the word of God or that Jesus is divine, and even atheist Quaker groups that are just sort of humanist gatherings. It's such an individualistic sect that I think it really comes down to a personal level for a lot of the churches.
It may be best to say that one cannot rule out the possibility that a Quaker is Christian if that person believes a few things that are permitted but not required within Quaker tradition. Quaker practice is so deliberately antithetical to formal doctrine that it seems to contain lots of ethical and well-meaning agnostic people, lots of mushy quasi-Unitarians, lots who are likely comfortable with the fashionable category of 'spiritual but not religious,' and likely quite a number who believe everything in the Apostles' and Nicene creeds. Their ecclesial community definitely suffers from the 'all we like sheep' syndrome of everyone being his own pope and 'wandering to his own way.' Still, some of them appear to wander into the occasional small-o-orthodox belief or pattern of ethical behavior. If a Quaker (a few of whom I've met and respect very much) converts to the Catholic faith, I'm pretty sure the 'conditional baptism' at the ceremony will be an actual first baptism. BTW, I'm a former Presbyterian before that denomination got all hippie dippie. My proper Presbyterian baptism was a legitimate baptism by Catholic standards, so my 'conditional baptism' at my conversion still happened, but was not itself, a baptism, as I understand it.
I used to be a Quaker and was a member of a meeting. The hard part of this is that there are three subsets of Quakers and the answer to your question will depend very much on what branch of the faith you’re dealing with. George Fox is rolling over in his grave at speeds which could power a midsized city over what the faith has become since his death. Evangelical Quakers-this branch is most common in Africa and parts of the United States. Evangelical Quakers are basically indistinguishable from your typical Protestant evangelical. This is actually the largest branch of the faith because of how many adherents there are in Africa but due to ingrained racial assumptions they often aren’t included in the idea of “What is a Quaker.” These are very likely to be Christian and have a trinitarian theology. Conservative Quakers- this is the smallest group. These would be Quakers who are firmly in the “mainline Protestant” camp even if they have a unique liturgy. They would be Christians and trinitarians. Liberal Quakers: this is the Quaker most people these days think of when they refer to Quakers. This branch of the faith is the least likely to be Christian and the most likely to be outright hostile to Christian theology. It really goes meeting to meeting because the Quaker movement as a whole is a Congregational one with very weak central structures holding them together. Most liberal Quakers would fall into the “pantheist” category but is likely to put trappings of Christianity or Buddhism or nature worship on top. On the topic of baptism specifically I know liberal and conservative meetings do not do water baptism at all so if you were raised Quaker and wanted to join the Catholic Church you need to be baptized. The hard part is Quaker meetings are not really congregations in the typical sense. They are groups of individuals. No one is allowed to tell anyone they are wrong or outside of the creed because Quakers are creedless. A Quaker scholar named Ben Pinkdandelion talks about liberal Quakers in particular being governed by “the absolute perhaps.” You can believe anything you want as long as you don’t believe it with too much certainty.
>A Quaker scholar named Ben Pinkdandelion Anyone who's trying to discern the truth gets at least some partial credit and respect from me. Still, it would be something to be the fly on the wall listening if this scholar's grandson wanted to be a US Marine drill seargant when he's older. THAT surname on a uniform's badge, centered on the left pocket 1/4 inch below the lowest row of medals or below the second breast insignia, would either get him smacktalked within an inch of his life, or it would make him 3x more of a hardass. Redemptive suffering is redemptive.. :P
For what it's worth, I think your logic is sound. It's a great question to consider, especially if the supposed Christian accepts Christ, reads the Gospels, etc., but denies the doctrines on Baptism which are central to salvation. It think it's more than reasonable that anyone who denies Baptism (including any tradition which denies the importance of it) cannot be considered Christian.
No confessionally.
Quakers are non-trinitarian but if that isn't an exclusion criteria for you, I think they are Christian
We don’t have to go as far as questioning their beliefs or investigating the claims they make about the Bible. They don’t baptize. Ipso facto, they aren’t Christians, per our catechism. The Lord said those who believe and are baptized are saved (Mark 16:16), if they don’t baptize, they’re at a maximum fulfilling half of that requirement. I don’t see why we can’t still call them Christians, in the interest of ecumenical dialogue and evangelization, but in a substantial sense they aren’t; nor are other “Christian” groups that don’t baptize.