This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It's pretty clear the whole thing about 'nontheist friends' is from some tiny splinter group as the source can barely muster a badly designed webpage to show for itself. That's fine, but the prominent location of this discussion in the introduction to the article would strongly suggest to the casual reader that quakerism is beset by a huge secularist contingent... for all appearances that's far from the truth - if anything it appears to be the exception that proves the rule.
In typical wikipedia fashion the most outspoken seem to be writing the history out of all proportion to their numbers, years precedent, or authority of their claims. One supposes every major group has some hangers on that claim affinity for it despite the puzzling incoherence of this view or it being taken less than seriously by the group itself, but rarely are they given such a place of primacy in the discussion. By way of example the article on Roman Catholicism doesn't start out with a mention of the four Lefebvrist bishops and it would be a crazy distortion if it did. If there's any reason for this to be retained one supposes it should be in a seperate article or a seperate section, something along the lines as 'recent secular groups identifying with quakerism'.
Nontheist Friends are indeed a small segment of the general Society of Friends, but they are far from insignificant. Their voice is heard in many ways and the contributions they make to the ongoing conversation about Spirit, faith and meaning in Quakerism are important. See the Nontheist Friends page and its collection of resources[1] for more information. Jaybird vt (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Non-theism IS important to Quakerism--at the meeting I'm involved in, it makes up quite a few of our members. The point of keeping the non-theism is to show (I believe) that Quakers are very diverse in their belief systems, that though rooted in Christianity, it's not a religious movement tied exclusively to the elect. The inclusivism does not sit well with conservative forms of Quakerism, but for more liberal forms it fits nicely.
In regard to the example for Roman Catholicism, I would argue that there's far more per capita diversity among Quakers than there is among Roman Catholics. It's important to take note of that diversity with a religious movement that is small (despite it's international residence). I do think we could clear this up with a notation about conservative/liberal ideologies, which is what I believe the author intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.3.167 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Too Long and Too Much Detail
Due to some edits made today, this article is very long, and the number of exceptions and qualifications has made it a bit cumbersome and tedious. I am not criticizing the content of the additions. I think that the editor who made them has added some interesting and important details. I think that it is time to break part of this article into a new one called Quaker Beliefs and Practices. We can keep a summary in all the relevant sections here but move probably one-third of the present article over. Anyone else? Logophile 06:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
guilty as charged
I did spend a bit of time on this article, and have made it longer. I suspect the main reasons for this are:
I write everything longer--believing that many of our "disputes" about "topics that matter" would never get started (and waste so much of our energy) if we were a bit more careful in reflecting the nuances of each position
I am one. That is, a Friend. An an evangelical. With lots of contacts with Friends across the world (mostly through FAHE, Friends Association of Higher Education). I have invested much time in talking with folks to try and understand the underlying similarities and differences. Have even done Sociology of Religion and Anthropological Linguistics work about the differences.
About the only way I could see to make a useful discussion on this topic short would be to say "Whatever you think Quakers are, probably most people who would call themselves Quakers would, in a gentle and patient way, tell you that you do not speak for this Friend."
That said, I am willing to work in a more systematic way through the article, with someone.
Several things to keep in mind:
There is no worldwide Quaker headquarters.
Each Monthly Meeting may "belong" to a number of Yearly Meetings. Other Yearly meetings insist on single-yearly meeting-status.
Most of the Yearly Meetings in Latin America and Africa are far more politically/socially conservative than are the US/UK meetings.
There are now more Quakers in Latin America than in UK/US combined.
Some historians estimate that by 1800, 10% of all people in England were Quaker.
Many industrial giants including Cadbury, Lloyds, Darby, Waterford, Rountree were Quakers. One thesis is that these business leaders did so well because people knew they could be trusted, and they were careful to treat employees well.
Quakers have been represented in several Nobel prize categories, including the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to American Friends Service Committee on behalf of all Quakers. Boulding and Vickers were economics recipients. Joe Taylor won for discovery of first binary pulsar.
There are (relatively small) but active indigenous Friends meetings in Japan and Korea. A Japanese Quaker appears on the 5,000 yen note.
Quakers were known among many Native American tribes as being honest and trustworthy. Some claim that the treaty between Penn and the Native American tribes in that area was "the only treaty (between US and Native Americans) never ratified by oath and the only treaty not broken."
Quakers (including a woman, Mary Dyer)were hanged on Boston Commons because they dared to preach after being thrown out of the state for heresy. Her statue stands outside the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting office in Philadelphia.
Susan B. Anthony was a teacher in a Quaker school.
Richard M. Nixon was Quaker (thankfully) he said that his grandparent's faith didn't impact him much. Herbert Hoover was also Quaker. It was his actions in providing relief in Europe that catapulted him onto the political stage.(Well, we may not have done so well in Presidents. . .)
General George Patton was a Quaker.
Thomas Paine was a Quaker.
Another historical label of Quakers is "Publisher of Truth." There are extensive collections of diaries, biographies and treatises just about anywhere Quakers have lived for long.
The programmed/unprogrammed distinction is common, but not particularly helpful. Probably tracing the Hicksite, Gurneyite, orthodox and Wilburite divisions might make more sense. There have been many works tracing the migration of Quakers across the United States. We need to be aware, however, that it is often the "winners" whose books get republished.
Perhaps a discussion of different geographical areas might be useful. Guildford in North Carolina has little similarity with Greenleaf in Idaho, but they both are programmed, pastoral meetings. "How different?" Well a group at Guildford puts on a performance of "The Vagina Monologues" each year. I'm not sure they would not picket a bookstore that had a book with that name in Greenleaf!
Many of our modern practices (for good or for evil) derived from attempts of Quakers to act out their faith. Examples include revolutionary change in care for the mentally ill (William Tuke), establishment of schools in US first for women then after suffrage opened many opportunities for women, many schools for racial minority people. It also included the invention of solitary confinement, which came from the deep belief that "that which is of God" can be found in anyone, even the most criminal. Quakers believed that if separated from the culture and interactions with other criminals, and given time to reflect, people would come to hear their inner light and start the process of changing their lives. It didn't start as a punishment, but it quickly became one--a favorite of prison guards who could be free from some of their worst behaved charges, and who now had something they could hold over the heads of inmates.
All of these and many more, taken together, paint a rather complicated picture.
This perhaps accounts for some of the differences above between people's different experiences with "pastoral Friends." Some monthly meetings (we need to cover the importance of language to Quakers--so many have gone to prison over its use) are almost indistinguishable from Conservative Baptist, ECLA, ECNA or Christian Church--Disciples of Christ congregations.
Other meetings, even Evangelical Friends meetings, are actively working to rediscover what living out the Quaker Testimonies means. For example, the new Superintendant of Northwest Yearly Meeting just stepped down as clerk of an organization called "Right Sharing of World Resources." This group is dedicated to addressing the huge (and sinful, even) gaps between the wealthiest and poorest people. Hardly what one would expect from a card-carrying evangelical leader.
I have discovered, through working to plan worship activities with Friends from throughout the World (though mostly from US) that we don't even mean the same things when we say "pastoral" or "programmed". That is, a meeting that is "pastoral" in one part of the country would be considered "unprogrammed" in another.
Meanwhile, I have good [F,f]riends working at the core of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting who have experienced what they report as "personal Salvation, as a gift from Jesus". There are many different ways in which these varied perspectives can flourish within even a single Monthly meeting.
Unlike most religious organizations, no one is empowered to speak for anyone else. Here in the Pacific Northwest there are two Yearly Meetings which come into surprisingly little contact with each other. One is very evangelical, the other is socially and theologically liberal. The two might both work on behalf of a third entity (to promote peace, for example) and not even know the other is involved. So what could you say about the Religious Society of Friends here???
. . .and this area is rather simplified. There are some areas of the US (in the Midwest, in particular) in which as many as six yearly meetings are involved.
There are not any one set of "Quaker Queries," regardless of what any one individual from any one particular Yearly Meeting might have experienced. Some Quakers do practice water baptism. Some Quakers "support our troops" with displays of the national flag on the dais. Some Quakers believe from the depths of their being that other Quakers are doomed (whether in this life or the next, depending on the theology).
Some Quakers express resonance with Jesuits, others with Wiccan practitioners.
We don't even share the same umbrella organizations. There are many from which to choose. Oh, and to make it more complicated, still, the Bolivian Yearly Meeting is training missionaries to go to India and Africa--especially to places where "Westerners" are not welcome. But generally speaking, they are much more conservative than are the "evangelical" meetings in the States. I await eagerly the arrival of the first missionaries from the Bolivian Yearly Meeting to the United States!
There are already evangelical Friends from Guatemala who regularly meet with immigrants from Guatemala in Philadelphia. Oh, and their meetings each week in the heart of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting are programmed. . .mostly.
My own monthly meeting has one group of 10-20 who meet in unprogrammed worship. Then we have a programmed service of from 160-200, following. We have 54 kids at last count, including adopted children from seven countries (I may not have all of them accounted for). We could very well be the most diverse collection of folks at a church/meeting in Oregon.
Oh, and the town of Newberg here has about 20,000 people and six separate Friends meetings (one of which regularly tops 900 in four services and another rarely sees 50 attenders). Are they "the same"?
Just about the time I give up on "Quaker" as a useful distinction, I am reminded by some endeavor, past or present, that "feels like home" to me.
So what can I say other than "this is perfect for a Wikipedia endeavor?"
And that as you can see from this "discussion" post, I very much need an editor to work with, to help with word-bloat and topic-creep. I would, however, prefer a "dictionary definition" entry for "Religious Society of Friends" over an entry that would dismiss as irrelevant entire groups of fellow seekers after Truth.
I do apologize where I have violated norms and expectations about length of post or topic, or format. I truly do not mean to offend, just to offer meaningful help. There are so many poorly written or provincial accounts of Friends out there, and yet so many other well-written books--participants in the ongoing dialog that is "the Religious Society of Friends."
This article was beginning to look rather provincial to my (admittedly jaded) eye. I recognize the need for parsimony, but recognize the usually dreadful job that traditional encyclopedias usually perform upon "us Friends."
Wow! I actually read every word. If you will hang around for awhile and look around all of the Friends-related articles, you will see that almost everyone of your bulleted points is covered somewhere. For example, there is a list of Quakers and a Category of Quakers that include links to articles on the individuals you mentioned, and many more. We have worked very hard to include all aspects and facets of rhe RSOF here, as you will observe, if you look at the Project page and at the archives of this talk page and at all of the Friends-related articles. We who have worked on these articles also recognize some of the weaknesses that you have addressed and will be grateful for creative, informed editing on your part. Just keep in mind that this is an online encyclopedia. A broad article, such as this one, should cover the topic as concisely as possible. Many of your concerns can be thoroughly covered in linked articles, as I mention above. You have some fresh insights that are extremely valueable here. Oh, and please remember to sign your entries here and elsewhere. Thanks. Logophile 13:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I second Logophile's concerns and response. While the Quaker articles do suffer from a Euro-American bias, much of what you bring up has been covered somewhere, or discussed in the talk pages. I also feel that it is important to keep in mind that in the end Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore it is not important to cover every detail or every issue. The information needs to be accurate, but it does not need to cover everything. In fact it's my experience that with Friends that's hardly possible, since there are no overriding statements about belief that everyone (from any ym) will agree on. We need to not overwhelm to readers. Please understand that over the coming days other editors (myself included) are likely to cut or move some of this new content. Not always because it's wrong, but sometime because it's redundant to other articles or un-encyclopedic. Please do join the project and help us improve all the Quaker related articles. It's been a bit dormant of late, but it's getting to be time to fix that. It would be good to have the perspective of a Friend from NWYM, I've come of have a good deal of respect for several Friends from that yearly meeting, and it's always good to have new view points. --Ahc 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Move comment from article to here
I moved this comment from the article to here, which seems more appropriate:(TedTalk/Contributions 12:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC))
"Indeed, more information is needed on this site about the experiences and views of these often unheard Quaker voices from the Yearly meetings outside Europe and North America." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.161.209 (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2006
FWCC (Friends World Christian Council)
Quick question to make sure I'm right here. I just updated the page to put FWCC to be Friends World Committee for Consultation. It's the only FWCC I'm familiar with, and a quick Google search for "Friends World Christian Council" (in quotes) came up empty. Am I missing an internation body, or am I right here. If they are a Friends body, someone please point me to toward more information about them. --Ahc 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. In agreement, mostly.
Thank you for your kind responses to a newcomer.
After reading the responses to my (long) post, I re-read my post and I'm afraid I didn't do a particularly good job of painting the picture of the forest by drawing individual pine needles.
I agree that most of what I wrote has been covered, even in this article.
I also agree that an Encyclopedic entry cannot cover the whole--it needs to function at a much higher level of abstraction.
However* (this is the point I had in mind, but which didn't make it all the ways to my fingers)
If an encyclopedia entry paints an overall picture that is entirely foreign to the real-world inhabitants of the entry's topic, there is a problem.
In other words, where the article is headed now strikes me as being confusing. Not as a result of intent or inattention, but because the diversity present in the area staked out is so complex that no matter where you slice life in order to take your samples, you are going to end up suggesting that the community(ies) discussed are very different than they are.
So how do we proceed?
I am not familiar enough with the Wikipedia culture and argot to speak with confidence here, so I will make "a newcomer's plea" for gentleness on the issue of form.
Perhaps the entry on "Quaker" or "Religious Society of Friends" should be not more than a couple of decent paragraphs. In this entry we would work to point all sorts of different directions to entries covering a host of specific issues or communities.
The challenge would rest in crafting the entry so that the overall feel is of a concept that is closer to "biodiverse" than it is to "mixed-up jumble."
So the gentle reader would then be pointed to entries covering structures (monthly, quarterly and yearly meetings) umbrella organizational expressions such as American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Five-years meeting, FUM Friends United Meeting, EFI Evangelical Friends International, EFM Evangelical Friends Mission, FGC Friends General Conference, and FWCC--which I believe should be "Friends World Committee for Consultation" (although it's name does get jumbled around because it *is* a world structure, complete with Regions called "Sections"--here in the US (where I am) we belong to the "Section of the Americas." There are also Sections of Europe and the Middle East, Africa, and Asia and Western Pacific. The Section of the Americas just finished--I believe it was in Guatemala this year.
Probably also an article about Quaker-affiliated organizations (typically arranged around a theme or a concern).
Certainly an article on the history of Friends, probably tracing the geographic moves (which are a "must understand" if you are to make any sense of how things are today.
An article about "contributions of Quakers" would probably be good--not just a listing of individuals who happened to be Friends, but rather the individuals and groups which responded out of a sense of calling from their monthly meetings, or from some other group of Friends. Right off the top of my head I could see sections on peace testimony, human rights (including South Africa confrontations, counseling and support of consciencious objectors--people still don't know, and most would be surprised--, treatment of prisoners--Some Quaker women leaders actually went into British prisons to expose the conditions and push for reforms, poor, sick and other groups--including current work on sanctuaries for undocumented people from Latin American countries, Several of these, such as Lucretia Mott, are already part of Wikipedia.
Perhaps an article of the theology of Quakers.
Maybe an article covering "Quakers gone bad. . ." Well, that's probably not a great premise, but we really ought to cover folks like Naylor, who ended up being branded a heretic (almost certainly an accurate charge) who then repented and worked for reinstatement. This might be framed in terms of the communal decision-making process of Friends. Sometimes it does go astray.
It would be helpful, in an article on Quaker governance, to point out the important distinction between "consensual" decision-making processes and the Quaker desire for "unity." These are not the same, and especially now in the US, it is difficult for folks to understand there are possibilities other than "voting" and "dictating". This is one of the core issues that often span the theological stuff. However, Quaker decision-making practices were clearly born out of theology.
In a sentence or two, Quakers do not require unanimity. But there is a strong ethic of not rushing into decisions, of giving people time to work things out and plenty of time even for those not quick on their feet and aggressive in their debate skills to have their words heard and considered. Theologically, in that Quakers believe that there is something of God in each person, and that each individual has direct access to God. Thus, if there is an important decision to be made, we should take care to be sure we each hear God's direction. If we are all committed to hearing and obeying God, then we all should end up hearing the same message. This is the context within which the "standing aside" makes sense. It happens that sometimes I might think a plan is a mistake, but I do not have a clear word from God about it. Then after sufficient time for those seeking God's will to be able to set aside their own preferences as different from God's leading, it might be that this individual can't support the decision out of conviction, but cannot stand in the way of the decision out of conviction also.
There really should be an article(s) about the Friends' approach to missions. The belief that each person has access to God without needing to go through a priest or some other gatekeeper, dictates that any missionary work needs to start with a goal of establishing an independent yearly meeting. Thus Bolivia Yearly Meeting is completely independent now. They even have established ways to conduct their own leadership training.
Quakers and language would have to be included. The practice of not distinguishing among people of different (human) social ranks was what led to the Early Friends' use of "thee" and "thou" to everyone. Non-Quakers used one form for nobility and others of higher rank, and another form for those lower in rank. It is therefore tied in directly to "hat honor."
But Quakers also insisted on making a verbal distinction between the "Church" as God's body of believers and the human organizational structures and the physical building. So while most Protestants, and quite a number of Roman Catholics, have used "church" for all three things, Friends have been quick and careful to keep the distinction. We tend not to have the "in your face" aggression of Fox (who called even Baptist pastors "priests" and the ornate buildings "steeple-houses") many of us do still refer to the buildings in which we meet as "meetinghouses" and the organizational structures "monthly meetings", "quarterly meetings" and "yearly meetings" based on how often they met for business.
This is necessary to understand the whole issue behind "programmed" and "unprogrammed" meetings. While those groups which tended to de-emphasize the need for teaching theology (now we tend to think of them as "liberal", but the distinction is far from accurate)followed Fox's lead in refusing any sort of paid clergy, many (but far from all) of the more theologically-concerned felt the increasing need to have "messages" delivered weekly to be based in a life of study.
So many of these started "releasing" some of those who demonstrated "proclamational gifts" (mostly preaching and teaching) from the financial obligations of an outside career. Many of those who are deeply embedded within a "programmed" tradition still are uneasy about the move. In most "programmed" meetings, the expectations of the "pastoral staff" are watched carefully, so that a meeting does not become lazy--relying on paid staff to perform the sorts of ministry that bind a body together.
If I was to point at a particular set of reasons for the move of some meetings to a "pastoral" model, I would say that two carried most of the weight: first was the hurtful and harmful divisions that occured between groups of Friends whose meetings had "drifted" apart to the degree that even monthly meetings were ripped in two. (Just a few years ago, I was giving a ride home to a woman, probably in her 80's, from an evening lecture in Philadelphia. I was amazed and somewhat entertained by this "sweet little old lady's" violent accusations against "those Hicksites"--even going so far as to warn me away from their "corrupting influences." Yes, these divisions were deep!)
The other factor, and probably a weightier one, was the North American trend to longer work weeks and climbing expectations--especially of those who were in careers that involved study of complex ideas and processing of information. I would say that this came about as a key factor in the mid-1800s at about the time that our "modern" paradigms of leadership were diverging wildly over even a couple of decades. This was also the time frame in which many of the Protestant denominations were "professionalizing" their clergy. The "circuit-riding preacher" was being replaced by the seminarian.
Now throw in the factor that the more theologically conservative tended towards the "young turks" in the meetings and it is not hard to see how the conflict in expectations and world views became a "rich-fuel environment" in which the divisions spread quickly. The younger families tended to be the ones who moved west (still referring primarily to the Friends in the USA, here) and it is not difficult to see how Quaker communities tended to spring up in places like Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Kansas, Iowa, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon and California. It is also not too difficult to understand how the groups just named tended to be the more theologically conservative.
I'm hoping this isn't too awfully boring. . .but it is a complex topic.
One more example of the importance that Friends placed on language comes in the naming of days and months. Friends tended to be writers, and readers, and so words and the etymology of words is perhaps more sensible in that frame. Yet Friends were so deeply committed to avoiding participating in language which tended to "obscure the light within" that they would not "just go along" with the crowd and the culture.
Early Friends witnessed against the names of days and months, pointing out that these names came directly from idol worship and human arrogance. They said "we don't worship the Sun, or Odin, or Thor, or Saturn, so we shouldn't use these names in honor of these false gods." So in the tradition of "plain speaking" Friends referred to "First day (Sunday)" and "First month" (January). This was so radical (and the approaches and methods of some Early Friends was so abrasive) that people ended up in prison because they refused to say the names of the days and months. In another example of how textured these layers can be, ironically those monthly meetings most likely to retain the day-naming are also the meetings most likely to include pagans, wiccan and atheist members.
As I mentioned before, those Friends who did adopt some sort of clergy ended up needing some sort of distinction. Many early Quaker weddings were not recognized by the civil authorities because Friends would not have a clergyman perform a wedding ceremony. Quakers, in turn, stated that marriage was a religious and not a civil affair. Instead a couple would come before a meeting for worship and announce their intent to be married. The "ceremony" was a significant period of "waiting before God" in the silence. Then as various ones felt led by God to speak, they would speak to the meeting about the union, whether it was "of the leading of the Spirit" or not. The ceremony would end by the unified meeting stating their support of the couple and pledging their support for the relationship. Everyone present would sign a statement of witness that the couple was married.
We find it disturbing now, but Quakers have in some times and places, believed that the guidance from God as discerned by the body of believers gathered there was all that was necessary to trigger intervention by "weighty Friends" of the "overseers." In some places, the sight of the approaching line of simple carriages holding Quakers of serious countenance was enough to send chills down the spine of anyone who might fear their home was the destination of this "visitation."
And Friends were "read out of the meeting." It was an action taken by the entire meeting, but its consequences were severe--from what I can tell, it was an analogue of "shunning" by some other groups. Different offenses seemed to rise and fall in popularity, but "marrying outside of the meeting" was frequently a sufficient offense.
Quaker education is a must (still a rich and healthy network of secondary and boarding schools, especially in the East coast states, and of colleges and universities (in addition to the extant eight or so Quaker post-secondary schools in the US) Quakers were behind the formation of Swarthmore, Haverford, Bryn Mawr and Johns Hopkins, among many others.
Civil disobedience by Quakers was a significant and continuing contribution. It was the Early Friends who spoke of "Speaking truth to Power." By this they meant disregarding any worldly barriers, honorifics, social prestige, etc. in order to directly and plainly tell those in positions of responsibility they needed to change their behavior. This part of the Friends' Witness was not so popular with the civil officials, no doubt! Yet this is the precept that guided much of the reactionary work on behalf of the poor and abused segments of society.
Role of Women in Quaker movement. Quakers recorded Women Ministers from the beginnings of the movement, and in many meetings is still a clear distinguishing feature of Friends.
There are, no doubt, other topics. Perhaps our best course lies not in the direction of having one entry for "Religious Society of Friends" that paints with broad brushstrokes and points to more specific articles all over the place.
Roy, I'm glad you are so excited to take part in this project. The kind of high-level organization of the articles that you're discussing is worked on over at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Please take a few minutes to review the articles that are listed on those pages, and try to get an understanding of what work has already been done. While these articles are by no means complete (most are marked as stubs), a good deal of work has been done by the community already, much of it along the lines we discussed. You'll find that most people working on these articles have a good understanding of the issues you bring up, and we've been working on improving the articles to reflect those better. In the future the kind of proposal you're trying to put together really should happen on the project's talk page (where we try to coordinate the many articles on Quakerism). You'll see there is already some discussion there from your earlier post.
One other detail, when replying to comments it's standard at Wikipedia to make sure that comments about any one discussion stay together. Please click the "edit" links on the discussion's heading, and then place your comments after the comment you are replying to. Placing one or more colons (:) at the start of a paragraph will indent your comments to help other follow the conversation. --Ahc 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope I'm doing this right. Some (sort of) breaking news: Indiana Yearly Meeting just finished their Yearly Meeting session. The yearly meeting is deeply divided over the YM policy towards the Sacraments (baptism, communion/Lord's Supper/eucharist. They were unable to reach unity and so have moved the discussion to next year's agenda.
Just can't pin them Quakers down
A second brief point: I'm not sure I would agree with the statement about programmed meetings and Quarterly Meetings. In fact, NWYM has a system of Quarterly meetings, and within the Yearly Meeting, some areas have significant support and participation in Quarterly Meetings, while other areas pretty much ignore this piece.
However, NWYM is in the final stages of decisions about, and early steps of implementation, of a significantly different structure and organization within the YM.
Best probably to avoid bifurcating into "programmed" and "unprogrammed". It keeps looking more and more arbitrary, and therefore of less value to the reader.
Should I delete part (or most, or even all) of my previous comments? It sounds like this might not be the place for these sorts of cases.
It's fine to leave the comments here that you've already made. I'd suggest repeating them over on the project page where they can get a proper review/disucssion. At some point soon someone needs to archive some of the old discussions here so this page doesn't get too much longer (which is to say, I'll probably do that shortly). --Ahc 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I really am not familiar with the "projects" thing. Please feel free to post anything anywhere that seems useful.
Upon reflection, I believe I can do a better job of putting into words my flurry of concerns.
It is critical for readers to understand--if they are to make any sense of Quakers and their diversity--Quakers' dedication to having their actions live out their statements.
Most religious groups heve some form of creed (although we don't need to get into the various distinctions between creed and practice and belief, etc.). What distinguishes the history of Quakers is how, from the beginning, the principles have been lived out in the communities, even at high personal cost.
Fox went to prison for not removing his hat and for refusing to swear an oath. *Penn suffered what amounted to disinheritance for his uncomfortable views. *relatively early on, John Woolman agonized in his journal as to whether he could prepare a will that included the transfer of slaves. In the end, he didn't
Friends were more willing than most to confront the evils of slavery, even to the point of specifically breaking the law, going to jail, paying fines, etc.
Some women ministers were jailed or even executed for preaching (what was considered to be a "man's domain")
Friends underwent tremendous hardship *with* those who suffered from war, even if the people helped were seen as enemies or dehumanized by the outside culture. This included actually living with prisoners in prison at Newgate and elsewhere, taking into their homes people who had been locked away in assylums, and walking between warring parties.
Where Friends have split, it has been usually due to incomensurable interpretations or ramifications of different reads of different testimonies. Even now, Friends have been far better at establishing independent Yearly Meetings in developing countries, rather than on building structures that kept people dependent on the "mother" church in Europe or North America.
And all of this without a creed or any sort of umbrella group. Even Fox (who was never shy about telling people they were in error!) responded to Penn's question about wearing a ceremonial sword with a query rather than a creed. Paraphrased, he said "You can wear it as long as God allows." Some have interpreted this as an underhanded rhetorical ploy by Fox to create guilt. Somehow I can't see Fox ever needing such a ploy--he was usually quite direct. I think it was an honest answer: It is not up to us to decide how others should act, but we should be mindful about our own conduct, including our willingness to proclaim an unpopular sentiment.
Friends have often (though certainly far from usual, even) focused on following the Light, Present Teacher, That of God within, Christ, God, whatever we call it. Friend's belief in each individual's ongoing relationship with a Present God, unmediated through priest or rite, has led them to accept and even encourage others who were in engaged in some ministry that even might seem strange.
All of the "Quaker distinctives"--plain clothes and speech, role of ministry and oversight committee, lack of reliance on clergy, peace testimony, refusal of oaths, fair business dealings, establishment of schools, role of women in ministry, all of them--can be directly and immediately placed within the context of the Testimonies.
My concern is this: Without this tie, the Friends end up seeming like a strange and somewhat loveable eccentric aunt. Unpredictable and taken to strange activities, but fun if you didn't take her too seriously and always more or less harmless.
Even when Friends went really wrong--with Naylor, for example--their actions came directly out of their beliefs. Many (most?) other religious traditions have a history of incremental change within a culture. Almost as if someone were to say "You are really wrong to murder, so in order to ease us away from murder, we will sanction (or practice benign neglect) rape and arson.
Friends were by far and away not the only ones to experience convictions about slavery. Jefferson also wrote against slavery. But many Friends were willing to take time off from their vocation, and travel from meeting to meeting, sharing their concern about slavery and encouraging slave owners to trust God and free all of the slaves, even if it seemed that this would lead to bankruptcy. Jefferson, on the other hand, wrote about the concern but kept his slaves.
Early Quaker industrialists were laughed out of the board rooms when they spoke of creating work environments that were safe and humane. Some did go bankrupt in the hyper-competitive environment. But others, such as Cadbury, Lloyds, and Darby became world players. They certainly weren't perfect, but being Quaker isn't about being perfect. It is more about being mindful. (Which, by the way, is a frequently found query, related to integrity. . .in a nutshell it challenges us to refuse to put our heads in the sand, even if it will likely be costly).
Lots of people opposed WWI. After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor it was exceptionally unpopular to be anti-war in the United States. Yet thousands of Quakers refused to serve. Some went to prison, some were accepted into a "human guinea pig" program to see what different chemicals might affect soldiers, some served in hospitals and nursing homes, some were just taken outside the recruiting/enlisting office and beat up for being unpatriotic. Some Quakers eagerly signed up and fought. One of the most notable of these was George Patton. Once I tell people he was a Quaker, many come to understand why he persisted in doing what he thought was right, even when it was not expedient.
I don't agree with Patton, wouldn't consider him a "model" of Quakerism, but he was, and he claims it influenced him.
Many people today oppose the war in Iraq. Far fewer oppose war in any form. Quakers are seriously overrepresented among people actively working toward peace in Northern Ireland, Serbia, Rwanda, Burundi, Tibet and Ramallah. Tom Fox, who was killed by his Muslim captors as he worked for peace and against what he saw as Israeli inappropriate force, was a Quaker. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
Quaker Oats took on the name not because there was any connection to Friends, but because at the time people knew they could trust Quakers to conduct themselves honorably and with integrity, always delivering a quality product (rather than simply an acceptable product in quantity). There is a reason we don't have "Episcopal Wheat, Baptist Bran, or Presbyterian Flakes." It is not because there is anything wrong with any of these religious traditions. But there actions did not so stand out from the actions of others that they became identified with any of these communities. (The Amish and Mennonite are closest in this respect--people who go to "Amish country" restaurant expect relatively wholesome and not-fancy food in large servings.)
Naylor, Patton and Nixon came from Quaker backgrounds, as did Hoover. It is not at all the case that Quakers are guaranteed to act a particular way. But the assurance of quality comes from a different place: there is deep-seated belief, nurtured by some four centuries' worth of millions of small experiences and encounters, that when push comes to shove, Quakers are less likely to go along with the crowd because doing the right thing costs too much.
So how do we capture that in the overall article? There are a lot of strange little practices of Quakers, and so many little groups of Quakers in all sorts of stripes and plaids that it is absolutely impossible to know much about someone who claims to be a "Quaker." But it is absolutely not these quirky things by themselves that lie at the heart of what it means to be a Quaker, or even to be "in the manner of Friends."
Now see, I've gone and done another sermon. Perhaps there is no hope for me. But through it all I hope, and pray, that the Wikipedia articles about Quakers will get beyond the weird and quaint practices of Quakers. It's not weird and quaint that led to the Nobel Peace Prize.
I've gone over the whole article this evening. In places where I made significant cuts that I'm not suggesting we move to other articles I'm including the text here incase others want to replace it. I didn't include all text I removed, just parts I thought people might care about. Text I recommend to be worked into other articles can be found in the talk pages of those articles. I marked the edits with references to those articles so editors that don't watch all those pages will know where to look.
From the intro:
Therefore, there are several branches of Friends, which can be roughly divided into two main groups — the unprogrammed tradition and the programmed tradition.
Some contemporary Friends speak of the Inner Light as a guiding force within each person, as part of the individual human personality, but early Friends beginning with George Fox identified the Light with Christ and emphasized that the Light comes from God and is given in order to show people how to live in harmony with God's will. [2]
From Sacraments:
Some Friends cited Ephesians 4:5, among other scripture as saying there is only one baptism, not two; the real baptism must be the baptism of the Spirit and not one of human ceremony.
From Plainness:
The latter practice has resulted in a degree of confusion, since English speakers broadly abandoned familiar pronouns in the 18th and 19th century (as these had become archaic and distinctive, and therefore not "plain.")
From Programmed Worship:
Also, at a point about twenty minutes into Meeting for Worship any children or young people leave and go to First Day school. There is often a day-care type service provided for especially young children. Among the Middle School Friends (usually ages 12-14) and the Young Friends (ages 15-18) there is a practice called worship sharing. These sessions usually occur once each month, and it is more open than regular Meeting for Worship. The teacher or adult in charge poses a question or thought for the group to ponder. The topics sometimes deal with current issues (What do you think of the war?), or with another choice (What does it mean to belong?). Those students present meditate on the thought, then voice their thoughts as they see fit.
From Programmed vs Unprogrammed:
(2) Most meetings hold activities that are a mix of programmed and unprogrammed meetings. While the weekly "First Day" (or Sunday) services are often the basis for sorting meetings into one of these categories, Friends also maintain that every meeting of God's people is sacred. Thus some unprogrammed meetings might hold "business" meetings with an agenda (program) and even might call it "meeting for worship on the occasion of business."
Likewise, some meetings from deep within an evangelical tradition have a weekly program of songs and a sermon, but also have an extended period of silence in which participants are urged to "listen for God's leading" in quiet and prayerful reflection. Some might hold "prayer meetings" which have no programmed component, but are instead devoted to private and public prayers, spontaneous singing of hymns and choruses, and readings of scripture. Pastors are appointed by some congregations, for example in East Africa, and there are is a college in Kaimosi in Western Kenya for the training of such pastors alongside other trades.
In many instances, different groups of Friends look at the same testimonies of Fox, Woolman, Barclay and others and derive very different outcomes. In "programmed" meetings, for example, some might point out that while there are salaried ministers, these are not ordained ministers but are rather individuals whose ministries have been blessed by God and who are then "released" from the responsibilities of a full-time vocation in order to spend more time helping others in their own walks with God.
Some have said that their programmed services are no less Spirit-led than are the services without a program. Rather, they hold that programmed services are planned in the leading of God's Spirit, who is bound neither by time nor by space, who might easily lead someone on Wednesday to prepare a sermon or practice a song that will be delivered on Sunday.
(3) With the explosion (in terms of attendance) of newer yearly meetings established in countries as diverse as Bolivia and Kenya and which are often geographically isolated from the United Kingdom and the United States, now a majority of the world's Friends have no direct experience with the un/programmed distinction. These fully independent yearly meetings have each developed their own meeting styles which may not comfortably fit North American/European models.
From Quaker Weddings:
This emphasis on the active participation of the spiritual community, rather than the action of a single member of the clergy, sometimes resulted in a greater sense of commitment to the success of the marriage by the larger community of Friends.
From Decision making among Friends (Note: it probably makes sense to create a meeting for business article of some kind):
In other cases a meeting may reach a sense of unity notwithstanding that some members remain opposed, although the meeting would proceed only after considerable time was spent in discernment to ensure that the concerns of the dissenting members have been heard and the sense of the meeting is clear. This situation is rare, and a cause for great care, for if people of God are attempting to faithfully listen to the Present Teacher, they will each hear the same message. A meeting moving ahead over the objections of one or more individuals is in effect saying "you were unable to hear God's leading in this issue."
This process is not a search for unanimity. Indeed, if the meeting were to require that everyone agree before moving ahead, the unintended results could be a pernicious form of tyranny in which each is forced to agree with the group, or to bear responsibility for the meeting's inability to reach a decision. In a well conducted business meeting, those in the apparent majority bear the same responsibility for discerning truth as does a lone dissenter. It is never assumed that a majority, no matter how large, is necessarily right.
Many Friends thus distinguish between consensus and unity. In consensual forms of decision making the goal is to find a decision in which everyone can agree. This process often involves compromise and extensive attempts to persuade those who do not agree.
...
These Friends believe that because God, the Present Teacher, is available to each, as each person carefully seeks God's will in the matter, sorting out his or her own preferences from the leading of God, that each person listening to the same God will hear the same thing. At its best, decision making is a spiritual, not a social process.
One important hallmark of seeking unity is that when differences emerge from within the group an extended time of "waiting on the Lord" rather than on attempting to muster arguments is needed.
This requires good clerking (leadership) of the meeting, to recognize when unity emerges, and to ensure that more aggressive or verbally skilled Friends do not intimidate the Friends whose inclination is to avoid disagreement. Many good clerks maintain that the task of safeguarding the search for unity in a business meeting requires that they not participate in the topical discussion. Some clerks will temporarily stand down, asking someone else to clerk the meeting, if the topic under consideration is so important to them that they risk being drawn into the discussion.
It is this focus on seeking God's leading that makes the "meeting for worship on the occasion of the meeting's business" truly a worship experience and not just another name for a business meeting.
...
When done well, participants in the process will not feel the need to compete for the opportunity to speak first: When everyone knows that the decision will not be made without ample opportunity to speak, it is easier to take the time to carefully examine one's own motives, desires and preferences before speaking.
From The Peace Testimony:
(Legendary folk singer and peace activist Joan Baez was raised in the Quaker faith.)
...
In addition, during civil war in Uganda, Friends in prison, arrested for their beliefs, preached the Peace Testimony, even managing to convert their jailer in one case Silver Khasufa.
...
In 2006, Quaker Tom Fox was killed while serving with a CPT team in Iraq.
From Testimony of Equality:
This testimony led early Friends to reject "hat honor", the practice of honoring some people by removing the hat when in the presence of people of higher rank.
It to me seems that this section should become its own article. Over time I think we'll be more and more inclined to include details of how a meeting for business functions, so it probably justifies it's own article. What do others think? --Ahc 03:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I followed the links to an article on "consensus decision making". The entire article seemed to me to be on the simplistic side (perhaps due to my ongoing research in Organizational Communication), but it had a section on "Quaker decision making." I don't know if it would be appropriate to link back here (sort of a 360 degree thing), but it certainly is relevant.
Perhaps an article on "Quaker meetings" might be worth considering? I'm thinking in terms of examining several types of Quaker meetings (clearness, weddings, threshing, as well as business) in light of Quaker philosophies or traditional practices. Put another way, I am growing increasingly sensitive to cataloging "weird Quaker ways of doing things" in a de-contextualized sense. Perhaps we would be better off discussing how the Quakers' beliefs led to these different ways of meeting?
Some suggestiongs:
Universal ministry (everyone a minister),
immediate access (not mediated by Priest or ecclesiastical structure),
privileging peacemaking (refusing to accept any sort of social darwinism in which the strong--or aggressively vocal--prevail), and
testimony of integrity (challenging participants to put beliefs into actions, even if it leads to unconventional methods)
It doesn't have to be an apologetic for Quaker practices, but it would help explain why these practices are held so closely by Quakers, even of dramatically different theologies.
And thank you all, for putting up with my "bull in a china shop" entrance. My entries could have been read as patronizing and as assuming that I was the only "real" Quaker present. I did not intend to communicate that; I am sorry. I suppose that several Quaker sensibilities were at work even here, among the tools and spare parts! Thank you for your gracious patience, all.
71.111.86.3 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Roy (but I still don't get all of the clever codes and secret handshakes. . .apparently there are different norms for the page discussion site than for the program/topic discussion site, and for a third sort of discussion place (which I haven't really assimilated in a coherent manner, yet. . .)
I think I messed up again! I looked up after several hours editing and discovered a little message telling me I wasn't logged in. Is there any hope I will ever "get it"?
I went through the entire article again, trying to polish and tighten the prose. I made some changes, especially regarding Evangelicals, but I don't think I substantively changed anything. Of course, there have been many disputes that began over something one thought was important and another thought of no special concern.
My own experience writing has been that subsequent edits may further tighten the style, resulting in a more readable text. (perhaps it is because I am so incurably "-use"--either abstruse or obtuse, depending on how much you agree?)
I believe it is coming together as a cohesive article. ahs, I appreciate both your deletions and your practice of putting them here. I will try to go through it one more time in the next few days to see if I see anything that seems worth discussing. . .
Again, thank you, all.
Roy 08:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Geographic dispersal of Friends
As I went over the newly edited sections covering some of the various Quaker splits, it felt pretty good: relatively concise, (mostly) not too condensed for a reasonably intelligent newcomer to understand, and balanced. (The evangelicals are not totally ignorant cretins, just some of us 8^))
It did occur to me that there is another piece that would be handy for anyone trying to understand Quakers around the world. This relates to the various migrations/jumps.
For example, it would probably be instructive to understand that the meetings around Guilford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, were started by some folks in the mid 1700s, apparently apart from the work in Pennsylvania (or was it?) and West Jersy. Woolman visited here, anyway.
Iowa Yearly Meeting spawned the Oregon (now NWYM) Yearly meeting (I think: or was it Ohio (now ER)? I need an encyclopedia to check it!--no, it was Iowa, but with a couple of ministers from London--was this the North Pacific/NWYM writing on the wall?)
I believe there were some Quakers from Chicago, including a businessman named Aquilla Pickering, started things in California in 1886, but I may also be mistaken there. . .the city of Whittier and Whittier College were both named after the Quaker artist; Whittier College (whose alumni includes Richard Nixon) has as its mascot "the Poets" (!). . . while attending an FAHE conference there, we visited the John Greenleaf Whittier pub!
Yet even without a detailed history, it seems that we would greatly assist our readers in understanding the current differences/divides among Quakers if we could add a paragraph or two covering the geographic movements, including those in Latin Ameerica, Africa, and Asia. (How did there come to be Quaker meetings in Tokyo and South Korea?)
Importance of "facing bench" and other accountability practices?
It seems that a mention of the "facing bench" might also help in understanding what Quakers are about. I realize that the practice has mostly disappeared among PYM meetings (does this match other's understandings?) but it is still a feature of many meetinghouses, and is critical for understanding Quaker governance.
Maybe a brief section covering the facing bench, role/use of queries, being "read out of meeting", and basically "when the Quaker method didn't work to avoid problems within the meeting".
It seems to me that the (perhaps apocryphal?) account of George Fox telling Penn that he could wear his sword "as long as the spirit allows" is significant.
What about Naylor? Without going into gruesome details, it seems that this incident was a foreshadowing of later aplits among Friends. (Did Fox *really* offer his shoe, instead of his cheek or even his hand, for Naylor to kiss when Naylor tried to reconcile after his trial, conviction on heresy, boring and branding and expression of penitance?)
We might be rightly accused now of being a little too "Pollyanish" about Quakers, in that our wonderful accounts of how well Quakers got along and all could be seen as representing a serious disconnect with history. Quakers did split, some grew apart, and some are now not even talking to one another.
(sadly and somewhat embarrassingly, I must note that NWYM just last month discussed whether we should even continue any sort of affiliation with FWCC) I wish it were not so, I have long worked for more understanding and better opportunities to understand our common ground, but there it is. It did happen, and will be discussed again next year.)
I'm not sure that a read of this article so far would give an indication to a reader that such deep divisions--way deeper than style of worship--could continue among reasonable people.
Divisions among Friends, especially across very different cultures.
Unfortunately, I fear the divisions will reappear, possibly in a most uncomfortable way, as the newer YM from south of the equator become more visible and come to expect their own place at the great Friends' table. Much of the work of NWYM missionaries in Peru and Bolivia, especially in the later years, was devoted to attempting to show people the way away from legalism and ultra-conservative cultures.
It is difficult for most Aymara people to accept the idea that women might be able to teach men in any situation. There is sometimes an uncomfortable dynamic between the Aymara and Quechua people. And discussions of hierarchy are sometimes most difficult.
My conversations with several friends from Kenya have left me troubled. More than one have expressed the idea that one of the reasons behind the many divisions among Friends in Eastern Africa is the adherance to a rigid hierarchy in which the men assume responsibility for making the really important decisions.
Several years ago I had the wonderful opportunity to sit and learn from several Kenyans who were among the leaders of a couple of the yearly meetings there. At one point a woman (who frequently pointed out that she was speaking boldly when they were outside of Kenya) stated outright that the divisions among the Friends in Kenya would go away if the men left things to the women.
Again, this is not a desire to air our dirty laundry, and is certainly not an attempt to use this project to fight any sort of battles. Yet the fact remains that most of the people who call themselves Friends in the world today have very little in common with any of the US/UK meetings.
There's more of us there than there is of us here. . .
At what point do we say "this used to be what Friends are about, but in the 21st century most Friends are hierarchic, patriarchal and extremely socially conservative?"
We talk about the "European/North American bias" and say we don't want to be responsible for it, but how do we handle things now that we are technically in the minority?
Or should I just be quiet and sit down for awhile?
````
Last bit for awhile.
It also seems to me that we are lacking an account of the Friends as "Publishers of Truth." I have heard many presentations by college and university English professors about how early Friends were so markedly different in their attitudes towards the written word.
Many have cited "journaling" as one of the most important contributions, and one of the key distinguishing practices, of Friends. To some extent it goes along with education, but not really. Even now, the Friends' frequent practice of composing elaborate, pleasing, and even literary minutes: of appreciation, as record of significant gatherings, and as cross-yearly meeting communication.
It is not an accident that Thomas Paine was a Quaker. His written pleas for God-given principles of liberty and equality came straight out of his Quaker meetings in England.
There is Whittier, of course, but even now it seems that Quakers tend to respond in an especially open way to those who write from their centeredness. (oops, I think we managed to avoid even mentioning "being centered"--did we?)
And this is one of the main reasons the Queries resonated so deeply with Friends. They are written examinations--not straightforward proclamations--that to a large degree depend upon the skill of the writers to effectively draw the reader into a place where the reader willingly examines some deep-rooted motivations and actions.
````
Numbers of Friends Worldwide
I've been bothered by the numbers put up recently, so I took a couple minutes to check on FWCC's site for their count. They do not reflect what Roy's been concerned about recently, so I've updated the page again (with reference now). Roy, if you have another source for your numbers I'm all ears, but I quick check of EFI's site suggested they have 36,000 members in Africa (FUM site didn't have numbers I could quickly check) so I'm inclined to stick with the current numbers I just put up. I don't want to blow off your concerns of late, and I still think we have a bias problem in the article, but I don't think it is as bad as you've been feeling of late. --Ahc 02:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that the Friends are not listed in the Christianity portal. Might it be acceptable for me to include the name Quaker in the portal? If not, then what might a good link-name be? Thank you, --Ancheta Wis 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (I am putting a Watch on this page to learn the answer. Alternatively someone might put a link in the Portal and make this question moot.)
Based on the Wikiproject RSoF I am unilaterally entering the link-name Quaker. Please feel free to change the Portal reference if you so choose. Ancheta Wis 02:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. --Ahc 04:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Crediting William Penn's contribution to the foundation of the RSoF
Someone has amended
"The Religious Society of Friends (commonly known as Quakers) began in England in the 17th century by people who were dissatisfied with the existing denominations and sects of Christianity. Traditionally George Fox has been credited as the founder or the most important early figure"
by adding
"but some credit is given to William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, who preached against the Church of England in favor of the Quakers in 1682. "
I do not think this addition is appropriate, as Penn was not "an early figure" . According to the WP William Penn article, Penn was not convinced until around 1664. He did make a very significant contribution to the growth of the RSoF, but not in the early period. Perhaps this could be recognised by an amendment to the section on America.
If all of the first generation of Friends were credited in this articile, it would be very long indeed!
I have added a link to the WP article "Valiant Sixty" in:
Experiencing God
George Fox and the other early Quaker preachers believed that direct experience of God was available to all people, without mediation (e.g. through hired clergy, or through outward sacraments).
and hope that this is in right ordering.
---Vernon White 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Quakers and the encouragement of Nudity
The following article has appeared:
Social nudity and Christianity have been practiced together for as long as Christianity has been in existence. Christian naturists or nudists are followers of the Christian faith who practice naturism or nudism. A visit to any of the Christian naturist sites listed below will clearly reveal membership from almost all denominational walks. Many have studied the Bible extensively and find no conflict between its teachings and naturism, as noted by the quotes of some of our Christian leaders listed below, including the late Pope John Paul II, RC Sproul and others. Even today, Quakers are known to encourage and enjoy nudity at their Farm and Wilderness camps.
I have added a {{Fact}} tag to the reference to Quakers. Somene who has edited this article has added red-linked individual called "Martin" to the List of Quakers, describing hm as "Active Quaker Naturist".
===Vernon White(talk) 17:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have now deleted both the reference in the article and the listing of Martin. ===Vernon White(talk) 21:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the generalization from F&W to all Quakerism was sensible, so it was probably correct to delete. --Ahc 15:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Category:Pro-Choice Religious Organizations
The article has recentlyhad the category "Category:Pro-Choice Religious Organizations" added.
Is it the case that all Quaker Yearly Meetings are "Pro-Choice"?
Pro-Choice is not a specific "Testimony" of Britain YM, I believe. If the RSoF WP Article is to be in this category, then a statement with citation needs to appear in the text.
I simply deleted it. It is a newly created category and was sparsely populated (two entries: Quakers and Humanists). I can't imagine getting this sense out of quaker-dom as a whole. If someone wants to survey the yearly meetings in all countries, that is about the only way to add something like this. In fact, it would be an intersting study to look at minutes from monthly meetings & yearly meetings concerning this — but it isn't there now. TedTalk/Contributions 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Image Question
There is a great picture on the French version of this article. I tried to put the image into this article, but a different image came up. How do I get the picture from the French version to here? Logophile 06:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The picture Image:Quakers.jpg was only on the French Wikipédia, not on the Commons. It is now avaible on the Commons and you can use it directly in the English (and all) Wikipedia. I just changed the name to Image:QuakersPennsylvanie.jpg.
"Many Quakers feel their faith does not fit within traditional Christian categories of Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, but is an expression of another way of experiencing God.
Technically in the theological sense Quakers are not Christian as they reject the infalability of the written word of God (the Bible), and other key doctrinal positions of the historical Christian faith tradition that defines "Christianity".
Quakers in Britain Yearly Meeting do not require anyone to subscribe to any beliefs, theological creeds or catechism, other than those enshrined in Advices & Queries, which is revised every thirty years or so. Many Quakers deeply value the Bible but do not regard it as "History".
Many Christians do not subscribe to the infallibility of the Bible, for instance, the Biblical account of the Creation.
Whose theology makes this a test? Would Jesus have recognised these theologically defined followers as his? They sound a bit Phariseical to me!
Sorry to be controversial.
=== Vernon White(talk) 15:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The comment about Quakers not being Christian because of their view of the Bible is clearly the Point of view of some, but not all Christians. There are many Christians that take issue with the text of the Bible. The comment was quite rightly removed. --Ahc 06:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that comment. The article could indicate that Britain YM Quakers have had some trouble with this POV when acting ecumenically. The article might cite To Lima with love : the response from the Religious Society of Friends in Great Britain to the World Council of Churches document Baptism, eucharist and ministry. - London : Society of Friends. London Yearly Meeting. Quaker Home Service, 1987 in this context. Is this document likely to be acceptable to FWCC recognised YMs? === Vernon White(talk) 08:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I concerned about our general tendency to add disclaimers that are YM specific. I'll grant you that traditionally statements from BYM have carried more weight then statements from most other YM's, but I'm concerned about the the general trend in the article. If we try to explain all the differences in belief between all the groups of Friends this article will be 100 pages long, and still make some people upset. On some of these issues I feel the less said the better. Having said that I'll try to review the document you posted to provide specific feedback to it. --Ahc 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The POV that Quakers are not Christian because of their view of the Bible, which I removed, seems too sweeping and reflects the views of evangelical (for example) groups which are just one part of the Christian continuum. I think some churches still view Quakers as heretics!
Some churches do. Some of those churches view each other as heretics. In the POV of those churches they are right, but that doesn't warrent inclusion in this article. As there has never really been 1 body with final say of who is or is not Christian (although several groups have tried), it is inherently biased to say anything that starts with the word: "Technically" about who is a Christian. --Ahc 15:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you. I wasn't suggesting using the word 'heretic' in the article. (M)
New F&P article
I noticed this morning that someone has created an article: Quaker Faith and Practice, that seems to be intended to cover the BYM F&P. I wonder if others might chime in on the article's talk page about thoughts on article scope. --Ahc 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Underground Railroad and Quaker Testimony on Truth
Does anyone have a source for this paradoxical bit of history, please?
This testimony appeared to conflict with other testimonies when Friends engaged in systematic law-breaking by participating in the "Underground Railroad" in the United States before the mid-nineteenth century. While the participation of Friends is widely celebrated, other Friends of the time held that they could not do anything that would mislead even a cruel slave owner seeking the return of an escaped slave. These Friends cautioned against deciding for ourselves what truth should be, rather than simply stating only what we know.
I stumbled across a quaker wikia that has been started. Seeing it almost empty, I've been writing on it for six months. I'm not sure how it relates to the main wikipedia.
http://quaker.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
--Paul Klinkman, psychware a t y a h oo d o t c o m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.130.202 (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Looks like the Quaker Wiki needs a huge amount of work. The site does not appear to have any sense of strategic direction. It hasn't yet got an article on George Fox. What is its purpose? Is it for Quaker information that is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia? === Vernon White(talk) 11:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi ya'll, I actually started the Quaker Wikia, and never put much work into it due to (a) general busyness and (b) feeling that we should have a proper wiki of our own. So I started Quakerpedia a couple months ago. There are about 60 articles, mostly from me, but I've invited a few people and linked quietly here and there. Please feel free to contribute! 03:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Zach
?Syncretic Faith
Someone has categorised the RSoF article as "Category:Syncretic Faiths". Unless someone can give a good reason for this categorisation, I will delete it in 24 hours. === Vernon White(talk) 15:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this category again. If someone can explain why they wish to place RSoF in that category please do so here. --Ahc 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitions of Quaker jargon
Weighty Friend: a Friend, respected for their experience and ability over their history of participation with Friends, whose opinion or ministry is especially valued.
+ ;Elder: a weighty Friend
+ ;To be eldered: a mostly outdated term meaning to be censored by meeting elders or leaders
I don't think these definitions adequately explain the role of "Weighty Friends"` in Meetings for business or the actions that Elders take when eldering. Does the anonymous editor mean "censured" not "censored"? Not all Weighty Friends are Elders and not all Elders are Weighty Frends.
===Vernon White(talk) 07:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)r
I think both or such poor definitions I'm going to remove them until someone wants to take the time to write something better. --Ahc 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
How about -
;Elder: Friend appointed to take responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the meeting and its participants. Most meetings have more than one. To elder: To rebuke or admonish. George Fox advised that this should be done "not in a rough, light or upbraiding spirit . . . but in the power of the Lord , and the spirit of the Lamb, and in the wisdom and love of the Truth." Sad to say, this advice is not always followed.
Source: Opening the door: Spiritual Hospitality Project Report (Meeting of Friends in Wales/Cyfarfod y Cyfeillion yng Nghymru 2003 ISBN0-9530935-1-4)=== Vernon White(talk) 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Not bad, although I have two concerns. First, in my experience while many Friends still acknowledge the presence and value of elders, few meetings still actually appoint them (at least in the US); the first sentence might be more accurate with "recognized" or a similar term. Second, if that's an exact quote are we going to have copyright issues (I'm not sure on that point)? --Ahc 01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In Britain YM, Elders and Overseers are appointed by the Monthly Meeting, not "recognized" (SeeBritain YM Quaker Faith & Practice (1994)). In an unprogrammed Meeting for Worship, without a paid pastor, they have a very significant role, not least in signalling the end of the Meeting by shaking hands (which is why we need more than one per Meeting). Their role in encouraging spoken ministry of an appropriate nature and dealing with inappropriate speakers, using spiritual authority. The survey by Meeting of Friends in Wales indicates that this is not always done according to Fox's guide-lines, especially to Welsh language speakers (20% of the population). As practice differs between YMs, perhaps this term needs a more general definition. In relation to "Weighty Friends" my understanding of the term refers to the weight which a Clerk of a business meeting gives to spoken contributions of individual Fds nin discerning "the sense of the meeting" and recording it in a Minute (This is very definitely NOT one-person-one-vote!).=== Vernon White(talk) 08:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In the US YM's that I've interacted with members of the Oversight committee (which has often been renamed for historical reasons in the US) are approved by the Monthly meeting, but Elders are not generally an official position, just a designation used to refer to members with extensive experience in the community that are generally well respected. There is no clear difference between the term elder and Weighty Friend, although usually when people refer to someone as an elder the target of the comment is older. I think you're probably right that we need a more general definition, but I'm not sure how to phrase it. --Ahc 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll think about it . . . === Vernon White(talk) 15:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In the "Quaker terminology" section, there's an entry for "Concern," but no definition. It seems to implicitly assume that the reader already knows the meaning. Also, there are no entries for "Meeting" or "Minute." Both are words that have specific meanings peculiar to Quakerism, and are used elsewhere in the article without definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
History paragraph
User:Lordmetroid has a point (now reverted) in that the grounds for the persecution are not indicated and the refusal to swear oaths by Quakers made them very vulnerable to legal grabbing of their property (seeIsaac Penington WP article and the ODNB article on him). It is difficult to understand now how provocative the refusal of hat-honour and the use of the second person singular (Thee/Thou) was, in those deferential days.
I think this clause is a bit absurd:
"(Anglicanism as we know it today was officially suppressed during Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of England). "
The pre-Commonwealth Church of England was a very different beast from the Anglican Church of today. As I understand it, the State-sponsored church continued, with protestant ideology, and non-compliant clergy were ejected from their jobs.
Quaker refusal to pay tithes undermined the power of the church, authorised by the State, to run local affairs.
The detailed account of the schisms among American Friends unbalance this brief summary of Quaker History.
Can we have briefer references to these splits, with links to the relevant paragraphs in the Quaker history WP article, please?
Vernon White(talk) 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Quaker Weddings
"After exchanging vows, ***typically writen by the couple***, the meeting returns to open worship and guests are free to speak about the couple"
Someone has added the starred passage. I do not think it is typical in Britain YM for the couples to write their own vows. Is it typical elsewhere? The standard Britain YM wording asks for "divine assistance", in keeping these promises, which may cause non-theist Fds some cause for thought.
=== Vernon White(talk) 09:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it's typical, common certainly, but I wouldn't define it at typical. --Ahc 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement that same sex marriages are not legal in the UK is debatable, as it has not been tested in court. The Marriage Act 1949 allows "marriage in according to the usages of the Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers". So if BYM now allows committed relationships, this Act may well apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.87.143.3 (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Gaps between vocal ministry
"A member will rise and share a message (give "ministry") with the gathered meeting when they feel they are led by the spirit. Typically, messages, testimonies, ministry, or other speech are unprepared, and members are expected by the community to discern the source of their inspiration—whether divine or self. ***After a member has shared, other members should wait a few moments in silence before another person stands to speak***. "
It seems to me that this recent addition specifies a very *minimum* gap between vocal ministry. Can this be rephrased, please?
=== Vernon White(talk) 09:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It certianly needs to be rephrased or removed, the text would probably still work without the sentance at all. A simple rephrase (which I'll post in a minute) would be to replace "other members should wait" with "Friends generally expect". --Ahc 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think many British Fds would expect more than "a few moments" to hear, listen to and discern the spiritual import of vocal ministry. We are not a debating society.=== Vernon White(talk) 12:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to suggest a better rephrasing, or removing the sentance completely I'm opening to that. --Ahc 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made the change. I hope it doesn't sound pompous, now! === Vernon White(talk) 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's too pompous; I suggest we let it age for a while and see how we like it in a few weeks. --Ahc 14:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why someone added and someone else deleted this link. When I dipped into the site I found a profound discussion of the views of Henry J. Cadbury on the need to live with difficult questions and not to answer them.
=== Vernon White(talk) 09:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't followed the link, but assuming you're right my guess would be that it was removed because there are some Friends that don't like having references to non-theists being part of discussions of Quakers. If you think it's a useful site, I'd be inclined to replace it. --Ahc 14:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
These Friends speak my mind. I also wonder why and believe that the non-theist site is useful to a thorough discussion of the breadth of Quakerism. The anonymous removal of another Friends contribution without any discussion gives the appearance of arbitrary and capricious vandalism. I believe that changes to wikipedia articles about Friends should approximate our business practice of striving for unity. In that spirit, I have replaced the link to nontheistfriends.org and invite further discussion. John Harvey 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Quakers and Creeds
I note User:Johntinker's revision of this section "Creeds - attempting to clarify discussion of (non) doctrinal issues)" and am unhappy with the outcome, both as a piece of encyclopedic writing and as an account of Freinds' history and current posture . We need a separate article on the Richmond Declaration and London Yearly Meeting's rejection of it. === Vernon White(talk) 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm also bothered by the new language, although I appreciate the attempt. There is already an article on the Richmond Declaration, which includes some limited discussion of it's rejection by many Friends, perhaps better referencing here would be helpful for people. --Ahc 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
On FA status, and pictures.
All the faults in this article seem to only be apparent to those familiar with the subtle trends, tensions and divisions in the society. For an outsider planning to learn and gather factual information, I think this article would be simply brilliant. On that basis I don't think that it is really that far from achieving Featured Article status.
Looking at the old peer review the only flaws found were an excess of red links (which has been fixed) and the absence of a really good picture to go at the top of the article: this is yet to be done since what we have in way of images is thinly spread enough. If there were to be an image, of a meeting, event or famous Quaker that really suited going at the top of this article then I would not hesitate to nominate this article for FA status.
Quite what this killer-image should be, I'm not certain. What do other Wikipedians think?
In terms of images I think if we could find a copyright-free version of the image of the holy spirit floating over the meeting that would be a good one for the top. I'd like to find (or create) an image of a traditional Friends meeting house in the US. I actually attend one, so I might be able to come up with something. Centre meeting is mostly unfinished wood interior with wood stoves and the partition still in place, it would be a good sample if I can find a camera to borrow to take the picture with.
In general, I think you're right, the article is closing on being ready to be a featured article. --Ahc 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ach, an image of your meeting would serve to improve this article and to award it greater relevance to the Philadelphia project which this article is also a member of (actually, I may have completely misinterpreted your location in meat-space, in which case this point is moot), so go ahead. :) --Paul Carpenter 12:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have put in a picture of Pendle Hill that I think is quite nice. If somebody finds something better, feel free to replace it. Logophile 07:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Love the picture of Pendle Hill ===Vernon White(talk) 10:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The picture itself is excellent, however the panoramic style of the image means that the layout of the article is greatly distorted, I will be pondering a solution to this.--Paul Carpenter 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
After much experimenting, I decided the best thing to do would be simply to reduce the size of the image. Thankyou logophile for putting it there. --Paul Carpenter 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Quaker Influence In Government
I think this article could use a section talking about Quaker influence in democratic governments; particularly their policies on freedom of religion in places such as Philadelphia.
-swimguy112, February 18, 2007
Immigration
Can any Quaker experts tell us anything about immigration to Britain during the nineteenth century? Was there any from russia or east Europe? I'm trying to trace my ancestry but there doesint seem to be much about this.
Significant edits March 2nd, 2007
I just finished making several major edits to parts of the page. Paul also jumped in and made corrections as I worked so you the history contains both of our changes. One of my primary goals is that the article has gotten very long and bloated. I only reviewed the first 9 (or 18) pages last night, so hopefully there is more to come. If you want to review the complete changes I made (including Paul's initial corrections) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_Society_of_Friends&diff=112079811&oldid=111903349
And the grand total from this morning and now is here. --Ahc 02:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ach's editing spree revealed that the article appears to have some unsourced statements. This means that the article cannot possibly reach featured status and possibly doesn't deserve A-Class status. Friends, please try to find sources or remove non-factual information. --Paul Carpenter 18:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain or point me to an explanation on the need for citing statements. No other book or encyclopaedia has to put a footnote next to every single sentence, which it seems we would have to do to make sure that there are no unsourced statements. Numerous references and external links are listed that verify everything in the article. Logophile 09:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Attribution. If you can find the external link that verifies the statement marked as requiring a citation (the statement is under ==Names==) then move that external link to a <ref> tag with sufficient justification and remove the citation needed template ({{fact}}). Published minutes from that particular meeting would be best, a note in a reputable history would be good.--Paul Carpenter 10:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I noted during my edits that: There was an unsuccessful attempt after a meeting in Leicestershire in 1654 to become known as the "children of light". needs a citation. If we don't find a good source soon, we could pull the statement, since it's not a terribly important detail. I suspect there are other places that citations would be helpful, but that was the place that jumped out at me. Paul's right, this would block getting FA status (although I think there is still some other work to be done around that goal anyway), but I'm not inclined to change the A-class status just yet, not for a sentence that could just be removed (I'd remove it first). --Ahc 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
External link sections
As I reviewed the article today to do the edits referenced above, I noticed that the external links sections has gotten a little out of hand. I feel that there are two sub-sections that lack clear purpose and I'd like to suggestion we remove them, but before I did that I wanted to bounce it off others first. To give some person context, I feel that links on this page should be useful to a general audience, and not either be for Friends, or for encouraging people to BECOME Friends.
The subsection labeled Quaker links seems to have no clear organizing principal, nor provide a great deal of information that would be valueble to non-Friends. Honestly it feels like a list of links that don't fit in other sections that someone wanted to include.
The subsection labeled Quaker books and writings feels to me like something that would explode if it were long enough to justify it's name. Most of the links are to publishers, not to books themselves; if we aren't clear to strike the whole section, could we rename it to be publishers and limit it to that?
Overall, I would like to reduce the number of external links. The Manual of Style section on External links recommends keeping links to a minium, and I think we're well beyond the minium (currently it's nearly 2 printed pages). I'd like to see if we could cut it in 1/2. --Ahc 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that at least half of the links could go. I recommend cutting links to all Faith and Pracitice wesites, as these are given in other articles. I also recommend all YM websites, as they are given in other places. I would remove all organizations, and make sure that the major ones get their own articles. What is useful for the general reader are the links that give more information about Quakerism in general. Most of those links have other links for the reader who wants to learn more. Logophile 05:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Logophile speaks my mind and I have removed 9 external links: 4 YMs, 4 QF&Ps and 1 link that pointed to a specific page of a site already linked to. --Paul Carpenter 15:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I really wasn't being bold enough there. I have now taken out a further 27 links per Logophile's suggestion. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Paul Carpenter 13:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's a great improvement, and I was worried that people would be upset if I started to prune too much... I think it would be good if we created a role of thumb for what stays and what goes, but so far I think this is great progress. --Ahc 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Quakers in Britain
The current paragraph reads:
"In Great Britain
Friends in Britain have maintained a high level of unity throughout the history of the Society. In very recent years, however, small Quaker Meetings have come into existence which are characterised by a more avowedly Christian faith. See, for example, Ripley Christian Quakers and Arbroath Christian Friends. These meetings are not part of the organisation of the main body of UK Quakers, Britain Yearly Meeting.
The local Friends meetings are called preparative meetings. Several local meetings are part of a monthly meeting. Several monthly meetings are organized into a general meeting. Formerly, general meetings were called quarterly meetings, and, while they continue to meet up to three times per year, they usually play no direct role in Quaker structures. Monthly meetings are represented directly in Meeting for Sufferings, which meets in between Yearly meetings.
"
The schismatic groups are entirely insignificant in a brief paragraph on Quakers in Great Britain. As someone has unilaterally decided to delete links in this article to Yearly Meetings as beleiving that "the fewer links the better", the information about the current state of the Quaker Faith in Great Britain is most deficient.
=== Vernon White(talk) 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Those examples are down as a reference, I'm not sure if these schisms in of themselves are significant enough in of themselves to be acknowledged, but if they are then links to some examples are pretty much essential. If they aren't, then that paragraph is going to need rewriting. Regards the removal of links in general, see the discussion above. --Paul Carpenter 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
How's this?
In the British Isles
Britain Yearly Meeting, has met each year since 1668. It is the body serving Quaker Meetings in England, Scotland, Wales and the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man. Every 25 years or so, it reviews its book of advice and procedures, called Quaker Faith and Practice.
Friends in both the Republic and in Northern Ireland are served by Ireland Yearly Meeting.
Quakers in Britain and Ireland have not experienced large, long-term separations or divisions, unlike their bretheren in the U.S.A., despite major controversies in the 19th century (ref)Isichei, Elizabeth (1970) Victorian Quakers, Oxford Historical Monographs series, Oxford, O.U.P ISBN0198218338: Chapter 2: Belief Divided – Three schisms(/ref). During this period, they had major influence: at one time, 14 M.P.s were Quakers.
In the 20th Century, British Friends suffered during the two World Wars, establishing the right of conscientious objection to military service. For their Relief work, after these disastrous onflicts, British and American Friends were awarded the 1947 Nobel Prize for Peace.
The publication in 1963 by a group of British Quakers of a pamphlet called Towards a Quaker View of Sex led to some fierce discussions and some resignations. Quakers emerged open-minded and free of extreme homophobes who populated the pews and pulpits of other denominations.
Irish Friends have played some effective part, despite their small numbers in seeking peace between Catholic and Protestant communities in the North.
Vernon White, your proposed subsection is very well written. I think, however, that all of us need to keep in mind that the main article on the RSOF needs to be as concise as possible. I think your paragraph would fit better in the Quaker history article. What you may not be remembering is that we have many articles on various aspects of Quakerism, and that we don't need to give all of the information about contemporary British Quakerism in an section about the divisions within the movement. The original intent of that section was simply to indicate that--in America mostly--there have been schisms that persist to this day. Logophile 06:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, "extreme homophobes" strikes me as POV, not to mention vague. Logophile 06:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
One last thing, did you notice that the subsetion as written has links to Britain Yearly Meeting and Yearly meeting, which contain the links that you have a concern for? In other words, it takes one more step to get there, but those external links are available without cluttering up this articles list. Logophile 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree with Logophile's comments. I would think that this should be part of the Britain Yearly Meeting article and not this one, and sentence about sex definitely has a POV problem. --Ahc 15:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Try again - “In the British Isles”
Even longer – sorry – but we have a lot of history!
In the British Isles
Britain Yearly Meeting, has met each year since 1668. It is the body serving Quaker Meetings in England, Scotland, Wales and the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man.
Friends in both the Republic and in Northern Ireland are served by Ireland Yearly Meeting.
Unlike their bretheren in the U.S.A. , Quakers in the Britain Isles have not experienced large, long-term separations or divisions.
In the early days, James Nayler's downfall warned Friends against extreme views and behaviour. They contrived a detailed system of control, which disowned those who failed to meet rigorous standards or held unacceptable views.
Despite major controversies in the 19th century (ref)Isichei, Elizabeth (1970) Victorian Quakers, Oxford Historical Monographs series, Oxford, O.U.P ISBN0198218338: Chapter 2: Belief Divided – Three schisms(/ref), London Yearly Meeting in 1887 rejected the proposed adoption of the Richmond Declaration of Faith. In 1895, the Manchester Conference and subsequent Summer Schools established the acceptance of modern scientific knowledge and biblical scholarship, without major splits (ref name=Allott)Allott, Stephen (1994) John Wilhelm Rowntree, 1868 – 1905 and the beginnings of Modern Quakerism, York, Sessions Book Trust ISBN1-85072-137-8(/ref).
In the 20th Century, saw the acceptance by British Friends of the Arts as part of the religious life of the Quaker community, without a Puritan backlash (ref) 1960 Swarthmore Lecture: Kenneth C. Barnes Creative Imagination (/ref).
The publication in 1963 by a group of British Quakers of a pamphlet called Towards a Quaker View of Sex led to some resignations but no formal divisions. British Friends now accept divorced people and may arrange a Celebration of Commitment {NOTE: this is NOT a Marriage or Wedding, as stated above. It has no legal status.} for couples of the same or of different genders.
In the 1970s, there was a controversy between the New Foundation Fellowship and the Quaker Universalists. Two local meetings have established links to Rockingham Monthly Meeting of Ohio Yearly Meeting, in the U.S.A., seeking a more evangelical and orthodox Christian ministry than Britain Yearly Meeting provides (ref name=RipleyAndArboarth) Ripley Christian Quakers and Arbroath Christian Friends.(/ref)
The current national structure of Britain Yearly Meeting is going through a process of change. The ancient body called Meeting for Sufferings passed its governance role to a small group of trustees in January 2007. It still has a role in scrutiny, communication and providing long-range vision. The names and boundaries of the equivalents of “Diocese”=”Monthly Meeting and “Congregation”=”Preparative Meeting” are likely to change substatially in the next few years.
Friends in Ireland have played some effective part, despite their small numbers in seeking peace between Catholic and Protestant communities in the troubled North.
I like the content better. It is very well written. It is longer, as you say, which still makes me wonder about it adding bulk to an already bulky article. I would still like to see most of this material in Quaker history and Britain Yearly Meeting. What I think we need in the main article is a brief description of the current divisions with Quakerism. Therefore, I still think a summary of your section should be included. That's how I see it, but I wouldn't edit it out. Logophile 20:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
God within each of us
new edit
referred to by some as "God within each of us"
Who are these some, please? I do not recall hearing this expression. === Vernon White(talk) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I have searched for it and cannot find it in any Quaker sources. It is a phrase used in Hinduism, Unity, and New Thought groups. For this article we should stick to Fox's "that of God in everyone." Logophile 20:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I can give only anecdotal evidence, but it is used in both Ireland and Britain. It appears to be used only as a distortion of 'that of god in everyone' so there is no major difference between the two. It's just phrasing. I can't see any real reason to include it in this article anyway. Ian Goggin 02:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Meeting house pictures
I've put three images of an old US meeting house up on flickr (I took them, so putting them on Wikipedia wont be a problem). Before I load them into Wikipedia, I wanted thoughts about if they make sense, in this article or the Meeting house article.
I like the middle one: [1] Is that a woodburning stove behind the cage? Can we have an article in that FMH, please? === Vernon White(talk) 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I meant Friends meeting house; granted if Friends meeting house is going to stay its own article, then we should probably switch meeting house to point there.
Yes, it is a wood burning stove. I'm not sure that Centre meeting is really notable, just an old building (the meeting was laid down for nearly 100 years, but is active again). I could start an article others think it has value. --Ahc 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ach, it'd nice if you put these on WikiCommons or such like with an appropriate copyright tag. There is already a reasonable bunch of meeting house photos over there. --Paul Carpenter 09:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm planning to. I wasn't going to bother with all of them, just whatever we were planning on using. Even WikiMedia Foundation doesn't have infinite quanities of drive space. --Ahc 03:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
A colleague tells me he associates Quakerism with the avoidance of alcohol, and has been able to point me to web articles which apparently make the link. While moderation in all things is a Quaker policy, I'm not sure that being a teetotaller is one of them. Were there Quakers associated with the Temperance Movement, did it ever become linked to Quakerism and would the article benefit from any mention of this feature? TomRawlinson 11:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The answer to your first question is yes, Quakers were part of the temporance movement (at least in the US). For the most part Friends have abandoned the notion that complete abstension from alcohol is nessasry. My first instinct is that it makes sense to include in the article on Quaker history, not the main article. I could easily be convinced otherwise. --Ahc 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ahc, and inclusion in the history section would be very welcome. I wouldn't include it in the main article just yet however, unless you have strong evidence otherwise. Ian Goggin 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
In the United Kingdom, Victorian Evangelical Fds were in line with the Evangelicals in other churches in opposing alcohol. SeeQuaker Action on Alcohol and Drugs (QAAD). The reduction in influence of evangelicals from the 1890s slowly reduced commitment to teetotalism until by the 1970s it was very thin indeed. However Friends in the UK tend not to serve alcohol in our Meeting Houses or permit others, who hire our premises, to do so. QAAD has a wider brief than Friends' Temperance & Moral Wwelfare Union, including Campaigning to reduce road traffic accidents caused by alcohol use. Many Fds in the UK value QAAD's information on the government's friendliness to the Gambling industry and its new legislation.
Current guidance BYM QF&P 20:42
Many yearly meetings hold very strong testimonies against any use of tobacco or alcohol. Within Britain Yearly Meeting some Friends advocate total abstinence from alcohol, others counsel moderation. Those who smoke tobacco, drink alcohol or abuse other substances risk damage to their own health, and may hurt or endanger other people. Such use can deaden a person's sensitivity and response to others and to God. Consider whether you should avoid these products altogether, discourage their use in others, especially young people, and refrain from any share in their manufacture or sale. Maintain your own integrity and do not let social pressures influence your decisions.
My feeling is that Friends were very active in this field especially during a period of history when it was a real problem (especially for many worker families) and when many other organisations where also advocating on the same subject. The note from Vernon White shows that at least for part of the RSoF this theme as remained actual. I agree it is mainly an historical issue. MHM-en 06:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Non-christian quakers
While the article mentions, in the summary, the idea of quakers who do not identify as christian (like myself), there seems to be no expansion of this, nor any mention of people who identify as quaker and as a specific non-christian faith (various or onspecific pagan, jewish, buddhist, etc etc).
Would there be objection to me expanding on this? I've found at least one source, albeit not a good one, but I'm sure I'll find more. SamBC 14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's not a reliable secondary source then it might not be possible to expand in the right way, but there's no harm in trying. Be bold! Anything to make the article more representative, whilst still being within the guidelines is good. Paul Carpenter 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added to the initial summary bit, and I'd like to add a section discussing it more, but I need to find more sources. Is it acceptible to write now, cite later? I've seen the "citation needed" marks around various pages, but I'm not sure how undesirable they are. More specifically, I'd like to include summaries of different faiths as combined with quakerism, and I'd like to start with a skeleton of it now, but I can see that it leaves the article in a very much incomplete state to do so. I'm new, so I'm wondering what people think. SamBC 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yo Sambc. Why not create a seperate article about non-christain quakers and link it to this one?--swimguy112
That would be a good idea eventually, most likely, but right now I don't have enough suitable material (and sources) for a worthwhile standalone article. I'll probably start a WiP soon, though, in my userspace. SamBC 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not a bad set of additions, you've done a nice job balancing being bold with being careful. Before we add too much content on this subject, I'd like to see if anyone kind find a solution to the problem of weasel words, particularly in the intro. I think it would be helpful if we could quantify the sizes of the various groups a bit more specifically (as opposed to the current "some" and "many"). That said, I've tried a couple of times with no real success. I'm hesitant to try to get the article rated FA until we manage to do that. --Ahc 03:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Being bold isn't going to be enough to fix that; IME, 'weasel words' are very common in writings of and about the Society of Friends, especially as the context gets wider. This is because it's very difficult to make sweeping statements, as I'm sure you're aware. The only way to fix this problem would be with good reliable stats, and the only place I can think of that would have these would be FWCC. Anyone want to look into it? SamBC 08:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The stats I could find online are already included and don't go into enough detail (the article uses FWCC numbers for total count, and regional comparisons). I haven't tried to see if they have more detailed numbers, I suspect good numbers don't exist. That's some of why I've never solved the problems. I'd love to be proven wrong. --Ahc 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Affirmation and the U.S. Presidency
"This acceptance of "affirmations" helped inspire the creation of a provision in the Constitution of the United States that allows an incoming President to "affirm" his or her loyalty to the Constitution rather than swear to it[citation needed]."
Suggest that, even if evidence of the truth of this statement can be found, the information would be better placed elsewhere, such as the Affirmation article. ===Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 08:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree - the influence of the RSoF on the framers of the US Constitution is very much worth mentioning, if we can have some non-anecdotal evidence, and it belongs in the RSoF article as it's (alleged to be) the influence of RSoF itself, not of the concept of affirmation. SamBC 14:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It's article II section 1 [2], but I'm not sure why the paragraph in question singles out the President. Anyone being required to take an oath can also affirm. The word "oath" is used 3 times in the constitution (at least the wikisource copy), all are part of the phrase "Oath or Affirmation". What's more, I'm fairly certain (I don't have a source here, so I could be wrong) that neither Quaker president affirmed, I think both swore oaths. --Ahc 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether quaker presidents affirmed or not is perhaps worthy of discussion, but not relevant to the point in question. I still say we need to have a reference that says that "swear or affirm" was used due to quaker influence. SamBC 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think SamBC's right here, an additional source to attribute the content of the constitution to Quakerism would be wise. It might make sense to include in the articles that Vernon White mentions, but the fact still needs a good source. --Ahc 03:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the right to affirm, rather than swear was an inheritance from Colonial America. If the right was in existence in 1695 in British law, as the Affirmation article states, why would it have been lost at Independence?===Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 09:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a scholar of the US constitution, but I do know that their judicial doctrine is that all laws emanate from the constitution. From a strict point of view, between independence and ratification of the constitution, there was no law, except what the colonies made for themselves (i.e. no federal law). In severing the ties with the mother country(ies), laws were in general lost. Some colonies (Pennsylvania for example) had well constructed systems of law, including a right to affirm. Others didn't. AIUI, I don't have references to hand. In any case, the affirmation option in the various oaths in the constitution is often mentioned as an example of quaker influence on the new-born nation. It might be a popular myth, of course, so I say we ought to actively seek a learned reference; I just don't have time to right now. SamBC 13:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is the Vernon is right on his point; English Common Law was carried over (hence the House of Commons writing to the Supreme Court about Habeas Corpus recently). Much of US property law is actual common law, and until recently many states still have common law marriages that came from English definitions (that's been changing as they adjust marriage laws to prevent gay marriage in various states). You're right that there were no Federal laws (there was no Federal government), but it wasn't a lawless society, and US law has deeper roots than our relatively young constitution. It is entirely possible that the 1695 law came from Quaker influences in England and the American Colonies, but we need to find a decent source instead of sitting around speculating. --Ahc 13:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so here's a "starter source". It's from a research paper published by the House of Common library in 2000.
The religious tenets of Quakers forbade them from swearing oaths (because it was regarded
as sacrilegious) and an Act of 1696 had given them the right to make affirmations in place of
most required oaths (but not the parliamentary oath).from page 19
It's actually probably a fine source to use given its origins, but I always prefer to find things in print (although this may be). Still need to find something to connect to the US, but at least this covers the 1695(6) issue. --Ahc 14:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Two points: firstly, AIUI, anything in an act of parliament is a matter of common law, it's a matter of statutory law. That I'm not sure of. However, more importantly, if the 1696 act excluded the parlimantary oath, one can assume that the framers would assume that it wouldn't cover the comparable oaths of office-holders in the US. SamBC 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Earlier today, someone removed this section. We should probably act on our discussions above, and fix it and source it properly. Any suggestions? --Ahc (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we should review both the section of this article on Oaths and the separate page Testimony of Integrity. The requirement to take oaths of allegiance and loyalty was a major means of persecuting early Friends. I think that if a source for the "Presidency" statement can be found, then the information should be placed in an "Affirmation (Legal sense)" article. The present Affirmation article is an unfortunate hotchpotch. Vernon White. . . Talk 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The US constitution backs the presidency statement (although in the context that it applies to all government required oaths). --Ahc (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the US Constitution allows for affirmation and that can easily be referenced and checked, but if we can source the Quaker influence on the constitution then it would be good to keep it here as an indication of the influence of Friends in the early Republic. SamBC(talk) 09:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit needed on "Experiencing God" section of article
The current text in section 1.1 is ridiculous and offensive and really should be removed. I came to the article trying to find information so that I might better be able to discuss with my thirteen year old daughter her budding interest in attending Friends meetings. Needless to say, reading that section as it is, made me glad my daughter was not sitting beside me, reading over my shoulder. It is sad that a person would write such things.
I am curious about the specific elements in the Section 1.1 text that offend Beatnick chick, that she finds ridiculous, and what she believes would be more accurate. As the criticism currently stands, it lacks enough detail to understand the source of her discomfort and to be able to research how closely the text matches reality. Leslauber 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)leslauber October 22, 2007Leslauber 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Lead image
This is a great article, and very important, given the invaluable contributions the Society has made to making our world a better place. But with all due respect, the image at the top of the page is rather dull. Couldn't an image of a person (or a congregation) be placed at the top? I recognize that the hill is an important place, but as a design nerd I'd really much rather see a person in that spot. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
An important article indeed. Searching for an illustration for the French speaking page, I ended with the idea that this hill was a good choice. Friends (the Quakers) do not like symbols (like the ), and I think it would be problematic to put anybody's face at the top. The suggestion of a picture of a group is nice, but we experiment such a great diversity! Going back to nature, simplicity ... and silence, seems to me currently the best solution. Friendly -- MHM-en 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
V Small Edit
I have edited out a link to the Arbroath Meeting (Section on British Quakerism). This meeting has been laid down, and the link in the reference section is therefore dead.
Are you, or anyone, aware of any "Christian Quaker" meetings (outside Britain YM), other than at Ripley, please? Vernon White. . . Talk 13:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ripley Meeting is part of a larger grouping of Christian Quakers known as the Greenwich - Ripley Group, which includes scattered individuals and a small worship group in Greenwich, London. There may also be a small worship group being settled in the north-east in the near future. This grouping represents Quakers in the UK who are working toward recognition as a constituent Meeting of Ohio YM (conservative). Small, but in my opinion, significant enough to be recorded here.
81.187.36.90 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest visiting Ohio YM's web site. It contains links to the sites of many Christian-Quaker groups in the US and outside, including Athens Meeting in Greece, for example.
Try Bill Samuels Section on Christian Renewal This is a broader list of small Christian - Quaker groups in the US and abroad, refer to the section on the UK in particular. However, you won't find any specific reference to 'British Christian Quakers' as such a body does not exist. Only the ones mentioned in my second paragraph, and you could also include Friends In Christ(UK).
In the paragraph "Mysticism" the author claims, that mysticism includes the withdrawal from secular problems as political conflicts (for instance pacifism). I don´t think that´s right. There are a lot of counterexamples quoted in Dorothee Sölle´s "The Silent Cry: Mysticm and Resistance". One of these counterexamples in Sölle´s book are the quakers. I think that it is a one-sighted view to consider mysticism only as a purely individual thing. Is it possible to enrich this paragraph through a more distinctive view on mysticism? P.S. I hope that instead of my bad knowledge of the english grammar you can read my text without heavy problems. Stephen_Daedalus@web.de 12.05, 02.12.07, (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.189.141 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. As a Quaker myself I wouldn't say that this is true at all. Stefanjcarney (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I´ve tried to change the paragraph now. I think it´s content is much more balanced now. Nevertheless I´m not sure if it´s done gramatically correkt, but I hope. Stephen_Daedalus@web.de 23.15, 06.12.07 (CET)
I under stand the need to diversify english but..
These are "Testimonies", for Friends believe these important principles and practices should be expressed
That sentence sounds like crap. "for" needs to be changed to something else. Therefore, or better? That word sucks for this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesklyne (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
"For" reads naturally to me, but my variety of English matches my IP number. 82.36.26.70 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
history
I don't think the history section should be limited to theological question - the political involvement of Quakers (in particular in the movement in Britain for the abolition of slavery ) is very important 193.51.149.216 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The history article itself contains more on those kinds of issues. If we include everything worth mentioning here, the history section will take over the article as a whole. --Ahc (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Society of Friends - Baycliff in Cumbria UK
I am surprised that no one has mentioned that George Fox and Margaret Fell started the Society of Friends in Baycliff a small village in Cumbria UK.
There is a long local history regarding the Fell family and at the rear of a local Farm on Birkrigg Moor is one of the original burial grounds for Quaker Folk.
Due to persecution and one one notable occasion a Farmers wife stood up in church either in Baycliff or Bardsea, and castigated the Vicar for persecuting the Quakers and appropriating land belonging to Quaker Folk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.227.123.253 (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Quaker terminology
There are no citations für the quaker terminology, does anybody know of any books dealing with quaker terminology/language in particular? 85.177.5.173 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Mortal remains
I was surprised to see no information on early "communal" burials in this article, given the popular interest both in the discovery of new sites, e.g. Gruesome discovery made at cottage: Monday, 21 April 2008 and in the investigation and preservation of older ones, e.g.Woodbridge Quaker Burial Ground Project I would imagine that, as with all of the non-conformist denominations, burial in the traditional churchyard was either denied or purposely never sought. Additionaly, the fact that early meeting were held in private dwellings meant that neither was burial possible in any purpose-built graveyard. But this is all conjecture. I wondered if the Society Of Friends has or had strongs views and/or official policy on appropriate ceremony after death and whether of not this had significantly changed over the centuries. Would this article be an appropriate place to record such matters? Apparently, it is still an offence to "offer indignities to the remains of the dead", even after 300 years and of course regardless of their faith when alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Early Friends objected to "Hireling Ministers" and would not have wished to be buried in ground that had been consecrated by Anglican priests. Friends buried their dead in their own burial grounds, sometimes associated with Meeting Houses and sometimes where a Quaker landowner offered the corner of a field. The Quaker Testimony of Simplicity forbade outward displays, including the marking of graves with stones. This rule was laid aside in the mid-Nineteenth Century, but the permission to mark graves also regulated their size and wording. Most Quaker Burial Grounds are now closed to new burials. The ITV News item cited gives no evidence that the "gruesome" uncovered graves were Quaker. In relation to the Quaker policy on the ceremonies around death, the traditional policy was to have a Meeting for Worship, similar to that held every Sunday. The Monthly Meeting might then appoint Friends to write a "Testimony to the Grace of God" as shown in the life of the deceased Friend, to be widely published. This tradition continues, with some modifications for Cremations, Green Burials and changes in Quaker beliefs about the nature of death and the afterlife. I hope this is helpful. It applies to Britain Yearly Meeting only. Someone told me 17th C Quaker burials in Barbados were marked with gravestones. Is this information worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? If so, I will need to find some reliable sources! Vernon White. . . Talk 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou, Vernon White. Your response is very helpful and exactly what I was looking for. I would strongly recommend that you add this, or a slightly condensed version, as a sub-ection in the article, even without citations at this stage. Yes, it's hard to escape the sensationalism of the popular press that brands all historical burial finds as "gruesone", whether Quaker or not. But more information on the wide range of UK burial sites might also be useful. As a Congregationalist by upbringing, I have long held a deep respect for the Society Of Friends, which your sincere and informative reply has only enhanced. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:George Fox.jpg
There is no reason for supposing that the artist who made this image had any reliable source for the picture. Why choose 1652? The text below says 1648. Vernon White. . . Talk 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, there's no reason for there to be a date on this image, so I removed it. --Ahc (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The spurious image is still at the head of this article. Vernon White. . . Talk 19:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain why you think the image should be removed? Also, where are you getting 1652/1648 from? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No-one knows what GF looked like. There are various supposed depictions but the authenticity of all of them have been challenged. There could be an article similar to Cultural depictions of Elizabeth I of England but it is inappropriate to claim any of them as suitable for illustrating an encyclopedia article, withot some form of disclaimer. Vernon White. . . Talk 23:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
as per the discussion on the George Fox article on his Wikipedia page and in Jean Hatton's recent book George Fox: The founder of the Quakers there are no contemporary images of George Fox and the image here is merely an artist's impression of what Fox might have looked like. For this reason I think the image should be removed or in the very least titled as an 'artist's impression' of what Fox looked like. Are there any objections to me removing the image from the article? Jenafalt (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Education section
If we are to have a section of this article on education, it needs to say much more than the current wording and have explicit examples and quotes. Vernon White. . . Talk 15:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The section is correct as far as I know, but finding a good citation will be a challenge. I'd be happy with removing the section until a citation is found. --Ahc (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker of English, and not an experienced editor of Wikipedia articles, and thus I will refrain from editing the article. I would, however, like to mention here that my previous web research has made me seriously doubt the article's statement "A very small minority of contemporary Friends have taken up the traditional dress once again,[14] but they are in the tens." - there seem to be far more.
The introduction to this article claims that many Quakers identify themselves as atheistic, agnostic, humanist and the like. I searched the article for an elaboration on this claim, but found none. I'd be interested to know how such a denomination can call themselves Christian yet deny the existance of God (I'm not being hostile - just curious). I'm aware that the RSOF emphasises personal enlightenment, but this all still confuses me. What are their views on the divinity of Christ? If the Quakers have any sort of universal theology, then it should be more clearly stated. If they do not, then that needs to be made explicit from the get-go. grarap (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)grarap
easy -- self-identification. A person could self-identify as Roman Catholic and pro-choice as well.... look at the wide variety of views between people who self identify as Baptist. The Friend's practice of disownment and of the overseers and elders making personal visits when individual friends were 'out of line' is history. Add to this that many quakers attend mostly-independent meetings of about five people who neither know nor care about history or belief -- if they were asked, they would say they grew beyond such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.47.227 (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
), and I think it would be problematic to put anybody's face at the top. The suggestion of a picture of a group is nice, but we experiment such a great diversity! Going back to nature, simplicity ... and silence, seems to me currently the best solution. Friendly -- MHM-en 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
