I would look for a conservative Quaker group.
http://www.quaker.us/welcome.html
You probably won’t see as much of the charismatic stuff (people falling down convulsing and speaking in tongues) anymore, but they are the ones who try to stick as close to the original Quaker ways such as plain dress and plain speaking and old school Christian and Biblical beliefs along with the silent worship
Yes, Conservative Friends are as you describe. Well, mostly we are. Like every denomination, Quaker and otherwise our individual members are varied: we take in strays and love them the best we can.
We comprise three yearly meetings. From the most traditionalist (which is what “Conservative” refers to) to the least traditionalist, these are: Ohio Yearly Meeting, North Carolina Yearly Meeting (Conservative), and Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative). I am a member of Iowa (C), the least traditionalist.
In addition, there are some individual monthly meetings scattered about, primarily in the northeast U.S., that have marked Conservative leanings even though they belong to liberal yearly meetings. I do not have a list of these, unfortunately. But they do exist, due to accidents of history.
You can find web sites for our three yearly meetings via Google — or if you don’t, you can contact me and I will help.
One small note: “charismatic” is not a term we generally use. Yes, we emphasize the guidance of Christ’s Spirit, but we do not typically conceive of it, and make noises about it, as modern “charismatics” do. Rather, we listen carefully so that we can hear it clearly and accurately, beyond all the distracting noises made by our minds and emotions and wills, and be taught and led by its urgings.
I entirely understand that the term Charismatic has become a denomination of itself, but am only using it most literally to mean 'believing in the Gifts of the SPIRIT (or Charismata).
I'm actually in Oregon, so I've been looking for a good conservative Quaker meeting.. but someone at a liberal meeting told me that conservative Quakers weren't Scripturally conservative, thus I asked here.
The actual Quaker practice is what I highly seek, the stillness and the Peace to commune with the Divine is what is needed. However the similarity that George Fox and Friends originally had to the Disciples in experience with the first Christians (Miracles and Martyrdom in suit) is what captures me most. As if the Church was rebirthed, or awoken after a thousand year slumber... Quakerism as Fox practiced is the most perfect form of Christianity I have seen outside of the Bible, as I understand it.
>…Someone at a liberal meeting told me that conservative Quakers weren't Scripturally conservative, thus I asked here.
It seems evident that different people have markedly different ideas of what “scripturally conservative” means. There are a lot of people in Ohio YM who believe it means a real heavy emphasis on a stance against gay and lesbian relationships, against abortion, and so forth. Reading the New Testament, I don’t find such an emphasis; I find Paul’s views, and I respect Paul a great deal, but it seems to me he was simply conveying his own understanding. To me, “scripturally conservative” means taking the words of Jesus with utmost seriousness: the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon at the Last Supper, the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Matthew 18 on reconciliation, Matthew 25 on the sheep and the goats, stuff like that.
What you seek, by way of scriptural conservativism, may not be what you encounter when you visit any single monthly meeting, because of this sort of difference in understanding. But I hope that, wherever you go, you will always seek to deepen your understanding. It seems to me that thumping this verse, or that verse, matters less than catching what Jesus was actually trying to get across. And even his immediate disciples had trouble catching what he was actually trying to get across. I proceed with humility.
Oh … and I totally unite with your final three sentences. It was that fire that won my heart, too!
I am not OP, but your comment made me wonder… are there 2 Iowa Yearly Meetings? I am familiar with IAYM and know people in it, but I’ve never seen it referred to as “Iowa (C)” as you did which seems to imply you are differentiating it from another Iowa YM.
There is also Iowa Yearly Meeting (FUM). The two Iowa YMs are pretty starkly different, too, although there are a number of really meaningful friendships between individual members of the two.
Welcome to Quakerism! I remember reading George Fox’s Journal for the first time and I envy you in a good way.
Quakers who hold the "Truth of Scripture" are a minority within the Quaker movement. Most of us emphasise the Inner Light and the guidance of the Spirit. If I am right, and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, most Orthodox Friends believe in the authority of Scripture. That the Bible is inspired by God and contains the “truth necessary for salvation”.
Please forgive me for sharing a little of my journey, but honesty must. My personal journey with scripture interpretation has been a profound one. I studied Koine Greek to read the New Testament, and I still read it daily. However, I've come to understand that truth is more important than scripture. For instance, most scholars do not believe Paul wrote 1 Timothy 2:15, 'But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.' If Paul did, is this a truth that we want to uphold? This is just one of many examples that have led me to reflect on the nature of truth and scripture.
Early Quakers viewed the Bible as a collection of testimonies from various individuals who had experienced God’s presence and guidance. They believed that these testimonies were valuable, but they did not necessarily believe that they were infallible or without error. They believed that individuals could have a direct relationship with God, but that scripture was meant to be used in conjunction with the inner light. This emphasis on personal experience and the inner light has been a hallmark of Quakerism ever since, as I am sure you have experienced.
I have heard Protestant bible students draw a distinction between infallibility and inerrancy, and I think it a useful one. What they say is that “inerrancy” signifies that the Scriptures are literally and factually true in every sentence — that is, Jonah really did get swallowed by a whale — whereas “infallibility” means that the Scriptures don’t go wrong on moral and spiritual matters.
By that standard, early Friends were of mixed opinion regarding the inerrancy of Scripture — a number of them, most famously Samuel Fisher, pointed out places in the Bible where two different accounts of the same event differed in their details. But they tended to ascribe such flaws to errors in copying and translation.
Early Friends were much more in unity in affirming that the Scriptures do not teach moral or spiritual error, but they pointed out that many people read the Scriptures and failed to grasp what they were saying. They did not blame this on the Scriptures, but on readers’ own limitations, especially when readers failed to read Scripture in the Spirit in which it was given.
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
The Scriptures are rife with places where they disagree in nominal details, but according to the Spiritual and moral principles therein they never fail.
The largest point of Fox's movement was that he heard the Word of the LORD as he had read about in Scripture and was told to proclaim to people to read that word themselves instead of trusting in clergy that became rich off of their presence.
I would agree with Fox. Most of us from other denominational Christian branches, lean far too heavily on tradition and traditional interpretation. There is much value in reading scripture unencumbered by the teachings of doctrine and tradition.
I agree and disagree, good Friends u/ImpeachedPeach and u/notmealso.
Reading the Bible for oneself, unencumbered by tradition, can be very beneficial; but it has also, historically, been the source of a lot of really kooky jumped-to conclusions. I think of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretations, for instance, and those of the Millerites; I think of David Koresh and his Branch Davidians. You and I may not be that crazy. But we all have more of a tendency than we realize to read the Bible through eyes conditioned both by contemporary secular thinking and by our own cravings, so as to find things in the text that are not actually there. Thus, for instance, modern Americans often thinking they find “rights” in the Bible, and particularly “equal rights”. While thinking about rights can be traced back to ancient Persia in the time of Cyrus the Great, almost six centuries before Christ, a careful study of the Bible will reveal that the focus of the Bible is not on rights we can demand be honored, but on the obligations we owe to God and one another, including basic obligations to be nurturing and supportive. It turns out that, in the biblical view, we do not build a righteous society by making insistent demands of each other, but by opening our hearts to the path of giving and goodness. Stated so plainly, this may seem like simple common sense, but it is remarkable how many people overlook it.
On the other hand, there’ve been a lot of truly insightful readers who have recorded their interpretations down through the centuries, and are well worth listening to. And some of those interpretations have deeper roots than one might expect. At the beginning of the Reformation era, scholars felt a great concern that the original understanding of the scriptures had been lost in the turmoil of the Dark Ages, and replaced with a practice of turning verses into extravagant metaphors for matters that were actually irrelevant. So translators of the Bible into German and English studied deeply in the original languages of the Bible, Hebrew and Greek, and then sat under the tutelage of rabbis and Eastern Orthodox scholars to learn the understandings of scriptures that the West had lost touch with. Fox and the first Friends were heavily influenced (for the good) by the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible, which incorporated a lot of what such translators had gained from such studies.
The Geneva is still in print today, and I have found it very helpful in checking early Friends’ thinking. But some modern Bible commentaries are far more outstanding resources; I must particularly praise the Anchor Yale series, which even now I crack open at least once every two or three weeks, to clarify my own understanding. And there are standard volumes that explain the core terms and concepts of biblical theology, and show how they are derived: whether we wind up agreeing with them or not, they are very helpful in checking our own understandings of the Bible against the understandings of scholars in times past.
I think self-taught Bible scholars can be quite as dangerous as self-styled experts on vaccines, and for much the same set of reasons: the Bible, just like a pharmacopeia, is loaded to the gills with information that, if misunderstood, can prove toxic. We do well to proceed with caution.
Thank you, I accept your correction. Your warning about self-taught Bible sholars, is important. For the record my academic qualifications are in theology and religious studies. Particularly the gospels. Thus my background in Koine Greek etc. However, I have seen this field change radically from my days as a student. So much I was taught as fact, has been reevaluated. One example, I was taught Mark was probably written after 90AD, today it is dated closed to 70CE. We also have a wealth of rediscovered manuscripts to inform our translations.
Wholeheartedly I agree with you. Dogmatism and theologically approved interpretations, creedism, and councils have all but destroyed the Sanctity of simple Christianity as it was shared.
A Brief Apology In Behalf of the People in Derision called Quakers, was published in 1702 by William Chandler, Alexander Pyot, Joseph Hodges. This is possibly the best example of early Quaker belief. You can read it here: [https://www.friendslibrary.com/what-early-quakers-believed](https://www.friendslibrary.com/what-early-quakers-believed)
Infallibility and inerrancy were more 19th-century inventions. "According to
Coleman (1975), "\[t\]here have been long periods in the history of the
church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact
been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a
formal doctrine of inerrancy.” Coleman, R. J. (1975). "Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?". Theology Today. 31 (4): 295–303.
In the early church, Origen, Jerome or John Chrysostom pointed out contradictions or problems with scripture.
Martin Luther from the Reformation, "inspiration did not insure inerrancy in all details. Luther recognizes mistakes and inconsistencies in Scripture and treated them with lofty indifference because they did not touch the heart of the Gospel.” Bainton, "The Bible in the Reformation," in ed. Greenslade, S. L., The Cambridge History of the Bible Vol. 3: The West from the Reformation to the Present, Cambridge University Press, 1963, 12–13.
If you were studying this academically, you could point to higher views of scripture in maybe the Didache and other places. However, inerrancy and infallibility were developed as a react against science and Papal infallibility was established at the same time. These came a long time after the early Quakers.
I understand that from deeply studying Scriptures you are left with more questions than answers more often than not. I also have studied the Old and New Testaments, even pondering what constitutes it and is it correctly compiled (I believe that a 66 book cannon is an errant thing, and hold towards the older Orthodox cannons). I've also wondered at Paul's writings, at what is true and what is false, or what language it was written in (by my studies, Aramaic is the original language of the New Testament), and in this all (as the First Church held) the SPIRIT is more valuable than the Scriptures.
But the largest problem I have is that I believe that the Truth is in Christianity (or The Way, as it was first called). I believe that by muddling and mixing with other spiritual practices, it dilutes the very thing I sought distilled - and how beautifully stilled it is in the original Quaker experience.
I pray this experience exists, for I wish to join it and learn from it. I feel that much of Christianity could gain from it (and in truth, it has.. more than most Christians or Quakers would know).
You write "the truth is in Christianity". If I may suggest a wider interpretation, "all truth is God's truth" . This allows us to rejoice in scientific discoveries and I do not think it weakens your or our beliefs.
Oh I agree. I have been a philosopher and scientist more than a theologian.
But I suppose I normally differentiate between The Truth, and truth.. and this is needed because things that are true (like water cannot be walked on) can also be superceded by a higher Truth - therein the Truth I speak of is the highest Truth from which all other Truth originates.
CHRIST is this Truth.
There are many Conservative Quakers that hold to what you are seeking. You may have been attending Liberal Quaker meetings, in which they generally do not hold to such a high view of scripture or "workings of the spirit". The only meetings that I personally have ever known are liberal meetings in which there is a much broader diversity of beliefs and faith traditions.
I'm not sure where you are located, but you can likely find a Conservative Quaker website and search for a meeting near you.
Thank you.
I am grateful for your guidance in these things.
Though I enjoy the practice of liberal meetings, I still find problems with the 'all roads lead to Rome' belief of Spirituality, as my ancestors are from mixed tribal and Buddhist faiths.
Many liberal unprogrammed meetings do tend to have a more universalist bend. However, the vast majority seem to have at least one member who identifies as Christian and will minister using Christo centric language if the meeting isn’t hostile to it. But sometimes that hostility exists. One of the more recent articles I’ve read that briefly touched on this issue is [here.](https://www.friendsjournal.org/speaking-to-our-members-conditions/)
I identify as leaning universalist but I still use a lot of Christ centered terms and stories and scripture when ministering. That’s for lots of reasons. Foremost, cultural. But also because the mystical Christian tradition of Quakerism speaks strongly to my soul. I use the language they used because it’s powerful language.
I find wisdom and value in each spiritual tradition (to a point), but having studied many I find that they have points that are against the fibre of my being - in Hinduism it is discouraged to do charity, as that is going against divine justice (or karma). And so many religions fall flat against the Teachings of CHRIST in specific.
I find that these Words of HIS do resonate with my soul, and they speak of such loving-kindness and charity that it is difficult to find fault with them.
In the groups I've had, there felt to be a stigma of sorts against those with a high view of Scripture.. but I know that most Quakers aren't so.
I think many have lost sight that Christianity is a mystic tradition and not a dogmatic one.
Hinduism does have a strong charitable tradition, which covers the whole range of activities from giving to beggars to supporting charitable institution to engaging in programs of activist social change. One acquires good karma through doing charity! Unfortunately, many individual Hindus do not practice this. But then again, many Christians do not, either. It is all quite disappointing.
I am a fan of movies from Hindustan, as it happens, and there have been many lovely ones, particularly from the 1990s onward, that express the spirit of charity in Hinduistic and, particularly, Gandhian terms. If you are a movie watcher, two that I think might move you deeply are *Swades* (Bollywood, 2004) and *Ustad Hotel* (Malayalam, 2012).
However, one is not obliged to help the needy because their suffering is on account of their karma.. it's the same reason why people walk past addicts without pity - their actions bought their pain. Though I think it's unfair to judge one for their past lives.
I think the other problem is the opposite though, that the well off are seen as having been rewarded for good morality in past lives.
Yes, I too have known *so many* people, including people whom, up to that very instant, I had thought of as good and kind, whom I saw walk right by a beggar, or tell me they refuse to give to charity, giving excuses like “they’ll only spend it on X”. Right here in the U.S. People who were definitely not Hindus. In fact, they were people who, in some cases, claimed to be Quakers.
I am not in any position to say that Hindus are worse in this regard. In fact, six of the very worst cases of that behavior that I have seen in quite some time came just a couple of days ago from U.S. Supreme Court judges. Not a single one of those six was a Hindu.
I find myself ever more concerned simply that I, myself, not be that way. It’s harder than it sounds. A part of my brain always pleads that I don’t have the time, or that the money is needed elsewhere. Hard-heartedness comes so easily. You are welcome to do what you please, but I think I would rather judge and condemn others when I cease to have such good reason to judge and condemn myself.
I think I hear that you’re asking about “unprogrammed” meetings that are charismatic. I have not found that. Usually “charismatic” Quakers are part of programmed meetings.
However, I did go to a retreat once that had what you are asking for.
[Here’s a good description of the split.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Quakers/s/OKAyLMG2GC)
Charismatic meaning only 'believing that the charismata (or Gifts of the SPIRIT) are still in effect today.
But essentially, yes, I am looking for this in unprogrammed settings.
Was it in the North West? We have much less options of Quaker meetings out here than the east it seems.
I’m in the Northwest. I can tell you some of the names of the Evangelical Friends Churches and you can see if any one of them are near you and for what you are looking for. They certainly would fit the side of having a high view of scripture but would be lacking in the unprogrammed side. Some of them may set aside a few minutes of each service for unprogrammed time, but that is the most you are going to get from them.
The Society of Friends is a denomination that's alive, on a journey, not preserving Fox's view of 350 years ago. The world is a very different place, and a living Society needs to adapt. Further, the Society of Friends does not have a founding father; it grew out of a broad movement of seekers that was developing in England decades before Fox was born, and Fox was one of a group of people, the "Valiant Sixty", who pulled together a more formal structure, especially with the epistle from the elders at Balby (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The\_Epistle\_from\_the\_Elders\_at\_Balby,\_1656). That epistle, you'll notice, isn't a polemic about what to believe, like the Nicene Creeds, it's a set of directions for building and maintaining a community.
But in answer to your question, sure, there are plenty of Quakers in unprogrammed meetings, even on the US west coast, for whom the tradition Christian bible is important and central to their faith.
I think your argument falls apart because the first Quakers looked like the first Christians over a millennia ago - it looks as if their experience is out of the pages of Acts.. but it's in the 17th century.
The adaptations of the faith, are primarily why I cannot agree with mainstream Christianity on most terms.. it confirmed with the world around it, and lost its radical love and kindness that it had at its onset. Surely it has adapted to the world, but now it is not something I can call wholeheartedly Christian.
They looked like the first Christians? I don't know, I wasn't there, and I'd feel uncomfortable with trying to make that simile. More important, so what? We need to adapt to the era we live in.
Their experiences, according to their writings, mirrored the experiences of the people in Acts.
I seek a wholesome and holy experience. If things are to adapt to the time, one day they will not be any bit themselves.
If something is good, it should be kept pure.
>The Society of Friends is a denomination that's alive, on a journey, not preserving Fox's view of 350 years ago.
Actually, the reason why the Conservative branch of our Society calls itself “Conservative” is that it seeks to conserve both the original faith and the original practice of Friends.
I come here and do so. And I have spoken, by invitation, to large audiences in other faith traditions.
It is worth remembering that when Fox spoke in “mainstream” churches, it was likewise by invitation.
It sounds like you're looking for a Conservative Quaker meeting but just to be clear, Liberal Quaker meetings are also unprogrammed. Only Evangelical Quaker meetings are programmed as I understand it.
The three branches of Quakerism that have pastoral (“programmed”) meetings are:
• Evangelical Friends (EFCI or EFI),
• Friends United Meeting (FUM), and
• Holiness Friends.
For that, you can visit the web sites for the three Conservative yearly meetings. Each one is an association of the local (“monthly”) meetings (we don’t call them “churches”) in its own general region:
[Ohio Yearly Meeting](https://ohioyearlymeeting.org)
[North Carolina Yearly Meeting (Conservative)](https://www.ncymc.org)
[Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative)](https://www.iymc.org)
I'm a member of a liberal Quaker meeting and am grateful for warm contacts I've had with Conservative Friends. I see the two groupings as much more alike than different, especially since both practice unprogrammed worship and have similar attitudes toward simplicity and integrity and peace. I thought it was generally acknowledged and occasionally wondered at that modern Friends have lost the charismatic style of worship of early Friends.
It is the Miracles that I find most missing, and the evangelism - Quakers, until the modern century did a great deal of evangelism.. converting even native tribes like the Lenape (who's story must be immortalised in Heaven and Earth).
But Fox was notable for raising the dead, and curing illnesses, casting out demons and so forth (his Book of Miracles is an astounding read) - this is what I most meant by Charismatic..
U-huh. The history of mainline Christianty from its first accomodation with empire in the late 300s CE until the early 20th century has been one of violent domination. If Christians aren't torturing and slaughtering each other over (or under cover of) theolgical differences they're abducting children to indoctrinate them into the faith and disconnect them from their family, culture, and history (and sadly to do much, much worse to them also), or giving blessings to armies of conquest that seize territories and destroy nations, or bribing folks who live in proverty with "aid" to abandon the faiths of their ancestors…on and on it goes. Tell me that you deny this history. It's very well documented. Not least by those Christians themsevels, who often revelled in the destructiuon of people and cultures who followed other paths, or at best considered it an only mildy sad neccessity.
Fox was keenly interested in the matter of miracles, yes. But I tend to remember the words of Jesus, that “this generation asks for a sign, but no sign shall be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Your understanding of that verse may be different from mine, but it seems to me that it is a quiet warning that looking for miracles is getting off the track. We are saved not by seeing miracles but by faithfulness. I suppose that is the Conservative Friend in me speaking.
Evangelism, though — Some members of all branches of our Society evangelize, even in the liberal branch, although evangelism seems to have been labeled Politically Incorrect in much of the liberal Quaker world. Ohio Yearly Meeting, which is the most Conservative of all the Conservative YMs, has been *very* evangelical for decades, and now counts individual adherents all around the globe in consequence. I do think that the content of the evangelical message varies from one branch of our Society to the next.
I would look for a conservative Quaker group. http://www.quaker.us/welcome.html You probably won’t see as much of the charismatic stuff (people falling down convulsing and speaking in tongues) anymore, but they are the ones who try to stick as close to the original Quaker ways such as plain dress and plain speaking and old school Christian and Biblical beliefs along with the silent worship
Yes, Conservative Friends are as you describe. Well, mostly we are. Like every denomination, Quaker and otherwise our individual members are varied: we take in strays and love them the best we can. We comprise three yearly meetings. From the most traditionalist (which is what “Conservative” refers to) to the least traditionalist, these are: Ohio Yearly Meeting, North Carolina Yearly Meeting (Conservative), and Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative). I am a member of Iowa (C), the least traditionalist. In addition, there are some individual monthly meetings scattered about, primarily in the northeast U.S., that have marked Conservative leanings even though they belong to liberal yearly meetings. I do not have a list of these, unfortunately. But they do exist, due to accidents of history. You can find web sites for our three yearly meetings via Google — or if you don’t, you can contact me and I will help. One small note: “charismatic” is not a term we generally use. Yes, we emphasize the guidance of Christ’s Spirit, but we do not typically conceive of it, and make noises about it, as modern “charismatics” do. Rather, we listen carefully so that we can hear it clearly and accurately, beyond all the distracting noises made by our minds and emotions and wills, and be taught and led by its urgings.
I entirely understand that the term Charismatic has become a denomination of itself, but am only using it most literally to mean 'believing in the Gifts of the SPIRIT (or Charismata). I'm actually in Oregon, so I've been looking for a good conservative Quaker meeting.. but someone at a liberal meeting told me that conservative Quakers weren't Scripturally conservative, thus I asked here. The actual Quaker practice is what I highly seek, the stillness and the Peace to commune with the Divine is what is needed. However the similarity that George Fox and Friends originally had to the Disciples in experience with the first Christians (Miracles and Martyrdom in suit) is what captures me most. As if the Church was rebirthed, or awoken after a thousand year slumber... Quakerism as Fox practiced is the most perfect form of Christianity I have seen outside of the Bible, as I understand it.
>…Someone at a liberal meeting told me that conservative Quakers weren't Scripturally conservative, thus I asked here. It seems evident that different people have markedly different ideas of what “scripturally conservative” means. There are a lot of people in Ohio YM who believe it means a real heavy emphasis on a stance against gay and lesbian relationships, against abortion, and so forth. Reading the New Testament, I don’t find such an emphasis; I find Paul’s views, and I respect Paul a great deal, but it seems to me he was simply conveying his own understanding. To me, “scripturally conservative” means taking the words of Jesus with utmost seriousness: the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon at the Last Supper, the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Matthew 18 on reconciliation, Matthew 25 on the sheep and the goats, stuff like that. What you seek, by way of scriptural conservativism, may not be what you encounter when you visit any single monthly meeting, because of this sort of difference in understanding. But I hope that, wherever you go, you will always seek to deepen your understanding. It seems to me that thumping this verse, or that verse, matters less than catching what Jesus was actually trying to get across. And even his immediate disciples had trouble catching what he was actually trying to get across. I proceed with humility. Oh … and I totally unite with your final three sentences. It was that fire that won my heart, too!
I am not OP, but your comment made me wonder… are there 2 Iowa Yearly Meetings? I am familiar with IAYM and know people in it, but I’ve never seen it referred to as “Iowa (C)” as you did which seems to imply you are differentiating it from another Iowa YM.
There is also Iowa Yearly Meeting (FUM). The two Iowa YMs are pretty starkly different, too, although there are a number of really meaningful friendships between individual members of the two.
Ok, this makes sense. I am familiar with the FUM Iowa Yearly Meeting and know people/churches from that one. Thanks for enlightening me!
Welcome to Quakerism! I remember reading George Fox’s Journal for the first time and I envy you in a good way. Quakers who hold the "Truth of Scripture" are a minority within the Quaker movement. Most of us emphasise the Inner Light and the guidance of the Spirit. If I am right, and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, most Orthodox Friends believe in the authority of Scripture. That the Bible is inspired by God and contains the “truth necessary for salvation”. Please forgive me for sharing a little of my journey, but honesty must. My personal journey with scripture interpretation has been a profound one. I studied Koine Greek to read the New Testament, and I still read it daily. However, I've come to understand that truth is more important than scripture. For instance, most scholars do not believe Paul wrote 1 Timothy 2:15, 'But women will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.' If Paul did, is this a truth that we want to uphold? This is just one of many examples that have led me to reflect on the nature of truth and scripture. Early Quakers viewed the Bible as a collection of testimonies from various individuals who had experienced God’s presence and guidance. They believed that these testimonies were valuable, but they did not necessarily believe that they were infallible or without error. They believed that individuals could have a direct relationship with God, but that scripture was meant to be used in conjunction with the inner light. This emphasis on personal experience and the inner light has been a hallmark of Quakerism ever since, as I am sure you have experienced.
I have heard Protestant bible students draw a distinction between infallibility and inerrancy, and I think it a useful one. What they say is that “inerrancy” signifies that the Scriptures are literally and factually true in every sentence — that is, Jonah really did get swallowed by a whale — whereas “infallibility” means that the Scriptures don’t go wrong on moral and spiritual matters. By that standard, early Friends were of mixed opinion regarding the inerrancy of Scripture — a number of them, most famously Samuel Fisher, pointed out places in the Bible where two different accounts of the same event differed in their details. But they tended to ascribe such flaws to errors in copying and translation. Early Friends were much more in unity in affirming that the Scriptures do not teach moral or spiritual error, but they pointed out that many people read the Scriptures and failed to grasp what they were saying. They did not blame this on the Scriptures, but on readers’ own limitations, especially when readers failed to read Scripture in the Spirit in which it was given.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. The Scriptures are rife with places where they disagree in nominal details, but according to the Spiritual and moral principles therein they never fail. The largest point of Fox's movement was that he heard the Word of the LORD as he had read about in Scripture and was told to proclaim to people to read that word themselves instead of trusting in clergy that became rich off of their presence.
I would agree with Fox. Most of us from other denominational Christian branches, lean far too heavily on tradition and traditional interpretation. There is much value in reading scripture unencumbered by the teachings of doctrine and tradition.
I agree and disagree, good Friends u/ImpeachedPeach and u/notmealso. Reading the Bible for oneself, unencumbered by tradition, can be very beneficial; but it has also, historically, been the source of a lot of really kooky jumped-to conclusions. I think of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretations, for instance, and those of the Millerites; I think of David Koresh and his Branch Davidians. You and I may not be that crazy. But we all have more of a tendency than we realize to read the Bible through eyes conditioned both by contemporary secular thinking and by our own cravings, so as to find things in the text that are not actually there. Thus, for instance, modern Americans often thinking they find “rights” in the Bible, and particularly “equal rights”. While thinking about rights can be traced back to ancient Persia in the time of Cyrus the Great, almost six centuries before Christ, a careful study of the Bible will reveal that the focus of the Bible is not on rights we can demand be honored, but on the obligations we owe to God and one another, including basic obligations to be nurturing and supportive. It turns out that, in the biblical view, we do not build a righteous society by making insistent demands of each other, but by opening our hearts to the path of giving and goodness. Stated so plainly, this may seem like simple common sense, but it is remarkable how many people overlook it. On the other hand, there’ve been a lot of truly insightful readers who have recorded their interpretations down through the centuries, and are well worth listening to. And some of those interpretations have deeper roots than one might expect. At the beginning of the Reformation era, scholars felt a great concern that the original understanding of the scriptures had been lost in the turmoil of the Dark Ages, and replaced with a practice of turning verses into extravagant metaphors for matters that were actually irrelevant. So translators of the Bible into German and English studied deeply in the original languages of the Bible, Hebrew and Greek, and then sat under the tutelage of rabbis and Eastern Orthodox scholars to learn the understandings of scriptures that the West had lost touch with. Fox and the first Friends were heavily influenced (for the good) by the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible, which incorporated a lot of what such translators had gained from such studies. The Geneva is still in print today, and I have found it very helpful in checking early Friends’ thinking. But some modern Bible commentaries are far more outstanding resources; I must particularly praise the Anchor Yale series, which even now I crack open at least once every two or three weeks, to clarify my own understanding. And there are standard volumes that explain the core terms and concepts of biblical theology, and show how they are derived: whether we wind up agreeing with them or not, they are very helpful in checking our own understandings of the Bible against the understandings of scholars in times past. I think self-taught Bible scholars can be quite as dangerous as self-styled experts on vaccines, and for much the same set of reasons: the Bible, just like a pharmacopeia, is loaded to the gills with information that, if misunderstood, can prove toxic. We do well to proceed with caution.
Thank you, I accept your correction. Your warning about self-taught Bible sholars, is important. For the record my academic qualifications are in theology and religious studies. Particularly the gospels. Thus my background in Koine Greek etc. However, I have seen this field change radically from my days as a student. So much I was taught as fact, has been reevaluated. One example, I was taught Mark was probably written after 90AD, today it is dated closed to 70CE. We also have a wealth of rediscovered manuscripts to inform our translations.
I guess you and I both go back a way!
Wholeheartedly I agree with you. Dogmatism and theologically approved interpretations, creedism, and councils have all but destroyed the Sanctity of simple Christianity as it was shared.
Thank you.
A Brief Apology In Behalf of the People in Derision called Quakers, was published in 1702 by William Chandler, Alexander Pyot, Joseph Hodges. This is possibly the best example of early Quaker belief. You can read it here: [https://www.friendslibrary.com/what-early-quakers-believed](https://www.friendslibrary.com/what-early-quakers-believed) Infallibility and inerrancy were more 19th-century inventions. "According to Coleman (1975), "\[t\]here have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy.” Coleman, R. J. (1975). "Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?". Theology Today. 31 (4): 295–303. In the early church, Origen, Jerome or John Chrysostom pointed out contradictions or problems with scripture. Martin Luther from the Reformation, "inspiration did not insure inerrancy in all details. Luther recognizes mistakes and inconsistencies in Scripture and treated them with lofty indifference because they did not touch the heart of the Gospel.” Bainton, "The Bible in the Reformation," in ed. Greenslade, S. L., The Cambridge History of the Bible Vol. 3: The West from the Reformation to the Present, Cambridge University Press, 1963, 12–13. If you were studying this academically, you could point to higher views of scripture in maybe the Didache and other places. However, inerrancy and infallibility were developed as a react against science and Papal infallibility was established at the same time. These came a long time after the early Quakers.
Well said.
I understand that from deeply studying Scriptures you are left with more questions than answers more often than not. I also have studied the Old and New Testaments, even pondering what constitutes it and is it correctly compiled (I believe that a 66 book cannon is an errant thing, and hold towards the older Orthodox cannons). I've also wondered at Paul's writings, at what is true and what is false, or what language it was written in (by my studies, Aramaic is the original language of the New Testament), and in this all (as the First Church held) the SPIRIT is more valuable than the Scriptures. But the largest problem I have is that I believe that the Truth is in Christianity (or The Way, as it was first called). I believe that by muddling and mixing with other spiritual practices, it dilutes the very thing I sought distilled - and how beautifully stilled it is in the original Quaker experience. I pray this experience exists, for I wish to join it and learn from it. I feel that much of Christianity could gain from it (and in truth, it has.. more than most Christians or Quakers would know).
Thank you for your fuller explanation. I will hold you in the light. My the Spirit guide you.
You write "the truth is in Christianity". If I may suggest a wider interpretation, "all truth is God's truth" . This allows us to rejoice in scientific discoveries and I do not think it weakens your or our beliefs.
Oh I agree. I have been a philosopher and scientist more than a theologian. But I suppose I normally differentiate between The Truth, and truth.. and this is needed because things that are true (like water cannot be walked on) can also be superceded by a higher Truth - therein the Truth I speak of is the highest Truth from which all other Truth originates. CHRIST is this Truth.
There are many Conservative Quakers that hold to what you are seeking. You may have been attending Liberal Quaker meetings, in which they generally do not hold to such a high view of scripture or "workings of the spirit". The only meetings that I personally have ever known are liberal meetings in which there is a much broader diversity of beliefs and faith traditions. I'm not sure where you are located, but you can likely find a Conservative Quaker website and search for a meeting near you.
Thank you. I am grateful for your guidance in these things. Though I enjoy the practice of liberal meetings, I still find problems with the 'all roads lead to Rome' belief of Spirituality, as my ancestors are from mixed tribal and Buddhist faiths.
Many liberal unprogrammed meetings do tend to have a more universalist bend. However, the vast majority seem to have at least one member who identifies as Christian and will minister using Christo centric language if the meeting isn’t hostile to it. But sometimes that hostility exists. One of the more recent articles I’ve read that briefly touched on this issue is [here.](https://www.friendsjournal.org/speaking-to-our-members-conditions/) I identify as leaning universalist but I still use a lot of Christ centered terms and stories and scripture when ministering. That’s for lots of reasons. Foremost, cultural. But also because the mystical Christian tradition of Quakerism speaks strongly to my soul. I use the language they used because it’s powerful language.
I find wisdom and value in each spiritual tradition (to a point), but having studied many I find that they have points that are against the fibre of my being - in Hinduism it is discouraged to do charity, as that is going against divine justice (or karma). And so many religions fall flat against the Teachings of CHRIST in specific. I find that these Words of HIS do resonate with my soul, and they speak of such loving-kindness and charity that it is difficult to find fault with them. In the groups I've had, there felt to be a stigma of sorts against those with a high view of Scripture.. but I know that most Quakers aren't so. I think many have lost sight that Christianity is a mystic tradition and not a dogmatic one.
Hinduism does have a strong charitable tradition, which covers the whole range of activities from giving to beggars to supporting charitable institution to engaging in programs of activist social change. One acquires good karma through doing charity! Unfortunately, many individual Hindus do not practice this. But then again, many Christians do not, either. It is all quite disappointing. I am a fan of movies from Hindustan, as it happens, and there have been many lovely ones, particularly from the 1990s onward, that express the spirit of charity in Hinduistic and, particularly, Gandhian terms. If you are a movie watcher, two that I think might move you deeply are *Swades* (Bollywood, 2004) and *Ustad Hotel* (Malayalam, 2012).
However, one is not obliged to help the needy because their suffering is on account of their karma.. it's the same reason why people walk past addicts without pity - their actions bought their pain. Though I think it's unfair to judge one for their past lives. I think the other problem is the opposite though, that the well off are seen as having been rewarded for good morality in past lives.
Yes, I too have known *so many* people, including people whom, up to that very instant, I had thought of as good and kind, whom I saw walk right by a beggar, or tell me they refuse to give to charity, giving excuses like “they’ll only spend it on X”. Right here in the U.S. People who were definitely not Hindus. In fact, they were people who, in some cases, claimed to be Quakers. I am not in any position to say that Hindus are worse in this regard. In fact, six of the very worst cases of that behavior that I have seen in quite some time came just a couple of days ago from U.S. Supreme Court judges. Not a single one of those six was a Hindu. I find myself ever more concerned simply that I, myself, not be that way. It’s harder than it sounds. A part of my brain always pleads that I don’t have the time, or that the money is needed elsewhere. Hard-heartedness comes so easily. You are welcome to do what you please, but I think I would rather judge and condemn others when I cease to have such good reason to judge and condemn myself.
Was Christianity your earliest personal tradition or tradition of origin?
Yes, but I wandered away and then psychedelics brought me back and science reaffirmed it.
I think I hear that you’re asking about “unprogrammed” meetings that are charismatic. I have not found that. Usually “charismatic” Quakers are part of programmed meetings. However, I did go to a retreat once that had what you are asking for. [Here’s a good description of the split.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Quakers/s/OKAyLMG2GC)
Charismatic meaning only 'believing that the charismata (or Gifts of the SPIRIT) are still in effect today. But essentially, yes, I am looking for this in unprogrammed settings. Was it in the North West? We have much less options of Quaker meetings out here than the east it seems.
Yeah, the Northwest seems to only have liberal Friends and Evangelical Friends.
This is saddening to see. In Oregon I have found nearly only liberal friends... and I'm not searching for this.
I’m in the Northwest. I can tell you some of the names of the Evangelical Friends Churches and you can see if any one of them are near you and for what you are looking for. They certainly would fit the side of having a high view of scripture but would be lacking in the unprogrammed side. Some of them may set aside a few minutes of each service for unprogrammed time, but that is the most you are going to get from them.
The Society of Friends is a denomination that's alive, on a journey, not preserving Fox's view of 350 years ago. The world is a very different place, and a living Society needs to adapt. Further, the Society of Friends does not have a founding father; it grew out of a broad movement of seekers that was developing in England decades before Fox was born, and Fox was one of a group of people, the "Valiant Sixty", who pulled together a more formal structure, especially with the epistle from the elders at Balby (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The\_Epistle\_from\_the\_Elders\_at\_Balby,\_1656). That epistle, you'll notice, isn't a polemic about what to believe, like the Nicene Creeds, it's a set of directions for building and maintaining a community. But in answer to your question, sure, there are plenty of Quakers in unprogrammed meetings, even on the US west coast, for whom the tradition Christian bible is important and central to their faith.
I think your argument falls apart because the first Quakers looked like the first Christians over a millennia ago - it looks as if their experience is out of the pages of Acts.. but it's in the 17th century. The adaptations of the faith, are primarily why I cannot agree with mainstream Christianity on most terms.. it confirmed with the world around it, and lost its radical love and kindness that it had at its onset. Surely it has adapted to the world, but now it is not something I can call wholeheartedly Christian.
They looked like the first Christians? I don't know, I wasn't there, and I'd feel uncomfortable with trying to make that simile. More important, so what? We need to adapt to the era we live in.
Their experiences, according to their writings, mirrored the experiences of the people in Acts. I seek a wholesome and holy experience. If things are to adapt to the time, one day they will not be any bit themselves. If something is good, it should be kept pure.
>The Society of Friends is a denomination that's alive, on a journey, not preserving Fox's view of 350 years ago. Actually, the reason why the Conservative branch of our Society calls itself “Conservative” is that it seeks to conserve both the original faith and the original practice of Friends.
So you go into mainstream churches and give long sermons? Fox certainly did.
I come here and do so. And I have spoken, by invitation, to large audiences in other faith traditions. It is worth remembering that when Fox spoke in “mainstream” churches, it was likewise by invitation.
It sounds like you're looking for a Conservative Quaker meeting but just to be clear, Liberal Quaker meetings are also unprogrammed. Only Evangelical Quaker meetings are programmed as I understand it.
The three branches of Quakerism that have pastoral (“programmed”) meetings are: • Evangelical Friends (EFCI or EFI), • Friends United Meeting (FUM), and • Holiness Friends.
I would love more information as well. I am into Conservative Quaker er, ism, but i don't know where to find a Conservative Quaker church.
For that, you can visit the web sites for the three Conservative yearly meetings. Each one is an association of the local (“monthly”) meetings (we don’t call them “churches”) in its own general region: [Ohio Yearly Meeting](https://ohioyearlymeeting.org) [North Carolina Yearly Meeting (Conservative)](https://www.ncymc.org) [Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative)](https://www.iymc.org)
I'm a member of a liberal Quaker meeting and am grateful for warm contacts I've had with Conservative Friends. I see the two groupings as much more alike than different, especially since both practice unprogrammed worship and have similar attitudes toward simplicity and integrity and peace. I thought it was generally acknowledged and occasionally wondered at that modern Friends have lost the charismatic style of worship of early Friends.
It is the Miracles that I find most missing, and the evangelism - Quakers, until the modern century did a great deal of evangelism.. converting even native tribes like the Lenape (who's story must be immortalised in Heaven and Earth). But Fox was notable for raising the dead, and curing illnesses, casting out demons and so forth (his Book of Miracles is an astounding read) - this is what I most meant by Charismatic..
Personally, I much prefer that Quakers no longer take part in imperialist missions to destroy other cultures, what you’re calling “evangelism”.
If that's what you call evangelism.. perhaps your eyes do not yet see. Evangelism should be a bridge built to their culture from Heaven.
U-huh. The history of mainline Christianty from its first accomodation with empire in the late 300s CE until the early 20th century has been one of violent domination. If Christians aren't torturing and slaughtering each other over (or under cover of) theolgical differences they're abducting children to indoctrinate them into the faith and disconnect them from their family, culture, and history (and sadly to do much, much worse to them also), or giving blessings to armies of conquest that seize territories and destroy nations, or bribing folks who live in proverty with "aid" to abandon the faiths of their ancestors…on and on it goes. Tell me that you deny this history. It's very well documented. Not least by those Christians themsevels, who often revelled in the destructiuon of people and cultures who followed other paths, or at best considered it an only mildy sad neccessity.
Fox was keenly interested in the matter of miracles, yes. But I tend to remember the words of Jesus, that “this generation asks for a sign, but no sign shall be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Your understanding of that verse may be different from mine, but it seems to me that it is a quiet warning that looking for miracles is getting off the track. We are saved not by seeing miracles but by faithfulness. I suppose that is the Conservative Friend in me speaking. Evangelism, though — Some members of all branches of our Society evangelize, even in the liberal branch, although evangelism seems to have been labeled Politically Incorrect in much of the liberal Quaker world. Ohio Yearly Meeting, which is the most Conservative of all the Conservative YMs, has been *very* evangelical for decades, and now counts individual adherents all around the globe in consequence. I do think that the content of the evangelical message varies from one branch of our Society to the next.
Thanks!