Talk:Religious Society of Friends

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religious Society of Friends article.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
Peer review Religious Society of Friends has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), an attempt to better organise and unify articles relating to the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance within Quakerism.
News This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details.
Quadell has pledged a bounty of $15 in donation to the Wikimedia Foundation contingent on Religious Society of Friends's improvement to featured status. Please check out the Wikipedia Bounty Board for more information on how you can help collect for Wikipedia!
Good articles Religious Society of Friends has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Billy Penn, Our Founder Religious Society of Friends is part of the WikiProject Philadelphia, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Dates may only be approximate.

[edit] Summary of /Archive 01

  1. Richard Foster, famous Quaker (added to List of Quakers)
  2. Inadequacy of un/programmed distinction
  3. Links on histories of North American splits:
  4. Discussion on role of clerk vs. role of M&C -- differs from YM to YM
  5. Pacific Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice is copylefted, and the history of the North American splits (pp. 2-9) might be worth incorporating into WP. From User:Eric Forste, Aug 2004
  6. Justice Bennet as first to use "Quaker" (added)
  7. Regarding clerk vs. ministry & counsel (Organization section)
    • Respective roles clarified
    • Counsel, not Council
    • No need for separate articles on M&O or Clerk
  8. Giving context to the peace testimony (given)
  9. Grammar fix
  10. List of Quakers to separate article; perhaps shouldn't have short descriptions
  11. Clarification of Monthly Meeting (as unit of organization and as monthly business meeting)
  12. Nixon and Dave Matthews (since then moved to List of Quakers)

[edit] Summary of /Archive 02

  1. Theologically liberal? Theologically conservative? What do these terms mean?
  2. Origin of Name
  3. Friends' schools?
  4. Source for recent Testimonies?
  5. Breaking some sections out
  6. Organization
  7. Friends and the Bible
  8. Rename to just "Society of Friends"
  9. understatement?
  10. Plainness
  11. Evangelical and terminology
  12. Latest Edits--Nature of God, Trinity, Eschatology

[edit] Summary of /Archive 03

  1. WikiProject notice
  2. Large Edits 2 September, 2005
  3. Separate Religion ?
  4. "Code of Conduct"
  5. featured
  6. Thou
  7. RECAST
  8. CONTRADICTION
  9. Oatmeal
  10. Standing Aside and its Alternative
  11. References
  12. Inner Light in the Introduction
  13. Basic Divisions and Organization Section
  14. Organizations Sections
  15. Pro-life blurb in The Peace Testimony section
  16. Afterlife section
  17. A Proposal
  18. Should we respond to the deletion of userboxes?
  19. Questioning the Item on "Proselytization"
  20. New Footnotes
  21. Quaker vs Friend
  22. so nice

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

[edit] 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." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.87.161.209 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 02:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Roy Gathercoal

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.
Roy 10:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Roy Gathercoal
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.

Roy 06:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text removed Aug 10, 2006

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. [1]


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.

--Ahc 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split Decision making among Friends

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!

Anyhow, I realize that this is not the forum to try to write a comprehensive history of anything. (One interesting site with lots of dates is at http://www.quakernet.org/Discipline%201974/brief_history_of_iowa_yearly_mee.htm, just in case you need a second source to check something.

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?)

71.111.86.3 09:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


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.

Roy 10:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

````

[edit] 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)

Quick update, found numbers from FUM (150,000) click here for FUM Numbers. EFI's numbers for Africa can be found at: on their site. --Ahc 02:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name in the Christianity portal

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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] Valiant Sixty

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)

[edit] 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 [citation needed] 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)

[edit] 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.

=== Vernon White (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Is the Bible the infallible written word of God? Do Quakers believe that it is not?

On 21 Nov 2006, User:81.149.190.174 wrote:

"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".

  1. 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".
  2. Many Christians do not subscribe to the infallibility of the Bible, for instance, the Biblical account of the Creation.
  3. 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)

[edit] 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)

I have added my 2d worth at Talk:Quaker Faith and Practice. BTW both Britain YM and Baltimore YM claim then letters "BYM". === Vernon White (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.
=== Vernon White (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/l/Talk%7EReligious_Society_of_Friends_7912.html"