Primitive Christianity Revived, Again
Tags:
Jeffrey Carr said:
"You would have to define........" More avoidence!
Why is it that you cannot give a straight answer to a simple question?
Is this some kind of mind game Quakers play on enquirers?
I find it so frustrating that individuals seem unable to articulate what they believe without resorting to vague and obtuse answers.
It is so perplexing for the stranger at the door!
Baffled
Jeffrey
Hello, Jeffrey! I have four points to make; originally, it was two points, but I keep adding more.
First, it is useful to think of Quaker theology as "narrative theology". Viewed as such, the massive collection of Quaker journals and memoirs would provide lots of grist for one's theological mill. Some of these are available in the Earlham School of Religion Digital Collection. See http://esr.earlham.edu/dqc/index.html Others may be had as digital reprints or in eBook format, or even as originally published.
I would also recommend to you the work of Lewis Benson. Lewis is not the last word, but he is very important in understanding the theological basis of the Quaker faith. In particular, see Lewis' None Were So Clear, which tells his story. The New Foundation Fellowship offers many of Lewis' insightful essays at very modest prices. They also publish Foundation Papers.
Also, check out Quaker Religious Thought, which mostly reflects the views of scholarly Christian Friends. A more eclectic theological publication, with a more liberal slant, is Quaker Theology, published by Chuck Fager. Most of its contents are available online.
Robert Barclay's Apology has been recommended by others here. I think that it is not a good place to begin. Barclay is a second generation Friend. He has recast Quaker theology in a propositional format, foreign to the original Quaker worldview.
George Fox is a better starting point. His approach more nearly represents the genius of the Quaker vision. Fox's primary interpreter is Lewis Benson.
Jeffrey - As you can see from the above replies there is no longer any such thing in the U.S. as "Quakerism." The history, particularly the splits of the 19th Century, have led Friends off into many different directions (three main ones) and the divergence continues. I agree with Bill that in order to know Quaker theology today you have to spend a good amount of time reading the history, starting from the beginning. It also seems important to understand this history to be able to "choose" where your beliefs lie on the spectrum. Contrary to the impression I had as a member of a liberal meeting years ago, the theology of Early Friends is not dead and no longer relevant! It was alive and well then and still is today, in some circles! And it is indeed a meaty, deep, and revolutionary theology - one that all new members at that time were ready to die for! Their theology did not just consist of "Jesus wants us to love one another" - they would not have been willing to die for that! It was a theology that is still revolutionary in the 21st Century and for the most part still not being widely practised.
It is particularly interesting to me that in the 16th Century when a person became a Friend through a personal experience of God's Presence they invariably began to have the same scruples and to uphold the same testimonies as the other Friends - they formed a community with amazingly uniform understandings of God. (Not that there were not splinter groups and off shoots.) There was no understanding that they would each have their own individual "version" of Quakerism, or that the Light would tell them each different things, as there is today. God is One, and when they listened to the Inner Light they would be led as a body as long as they faithfully stayed in the Light. This collection of common beliefs was the theology that Quakerism became.
I am reading a book called Portraiture of Quakerism written in 1808 by Thomas Clarkson, who was an English abolitionist. He was not a Friend but had close connections with the Friends through his abolition work. He wanted to write a complete view of Quakers from the outside, largely for the purpose of educating the public on who the Quakers really were. He is an excellent and very clear writer, not at all difficult to read, and I am thoroughly enjoying the view it gives of Quakers at that time period. He covers their "peculiar" customs, testimonies, discipline, and theology and brief history. What impressed me most in this book is the detailed explanations of the Biblical basis and argumentation for all the beliefs and testimonies of Early Friends. The careful and logical thinking that these non-theologians put into analyzing Scripture is impressive and fascinating. And ALL their theology was based on this careful analysis of Scripture!
I will just give one quote from Clark's book:
"Quakerism may be defined to be an attempt, under divine influence, at practical Christianity as far as it can be carried. They, who profess it, consider themselves bound to regulate their opinions, words, actions, and even outward demeanor, by Christianity, and by Christianity alone."
This "version" of Quaker theology is still alive among Conservative Friends and others.
Blessings on your investigations,
Barb
Good Morning Barb:
I have been reading Clark's book as well and find it an encouraging read. I also appreciate your comment about what I see as the hyper-individualism of our time and how it has impinged on Quaker Faith and Practice. The idea of submitting to a communal discipline is alien to the hyper-individual, but was the norm for Quaker Faith and Practice for a long time. In some ways I get the impression that the early Quaker community resembles the kind of commitments that one finds in Christian monasticism. Of course there are differences, but the sense of commitment to a communal body is what I notice as a shared approach.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post,
Jim
N.B. The Clarkson quote speaks of practical, not biblical per se, Christianity and Christianity alone, not "solo Scriptura" as what Quakerism is(was?) bound.
Barbara Smith said:
Jeffrey - As you can see from the above replies there is no longer any such thing in the U.S. as "Quakerism." The history, particularly the splits of the 19th Century, have led Friends off into many different directions (three main ones) and the divergence continues. I agree with Bill that in order to know Quaker theology today you have to spend a good amount of time reading the history, starting from the beginning. It also seems important to understand this history to be able to "choose" where your beliefs lie on the spectrum. Contrary to the impression I had as a member of a liberal meeting years ago, the theology of Early Friends is not dead and no longer relevant! It was alive and well then and still is today, in some circles! And it is indeed a meaty, deep, and revolutionary theology - one that all new members at that time were ready to die for! Their theology did not just consist of "Jesus wants us to love one another" - they would not have been willing to die for that! It was a theology that is still revolutionary in the 21st Century and for the most part still not being widely practised.
It is particularly interesting to me that in the 16th Century when a person became a Friend through a personal experience of God's Presence they invariably began to have the same scruples and to uphold the same testimonies as the other Friends - they formed a community with amazingly uniform understandings of God. (Not that there were not splinter groups and off shoots.) There was no understanding that they would each have their own individual "version" of Quakerism, or that the Light would tell them each different things, as there is today. God is One, and when they listened to the Inner Light they would be led as a body as long as they faithfully stayed in the Light. This collection of common beliefs was the theology that Quakerism became.
I am reading a book called Portraiture of Quakerism written in 1808 by Thomas Clarkson, who was an English abolitionist. He was not a Friend but had close connections with the Friends through his abolition work. He wanted to write a complete view of Quakers from the outside, largely for the purpose of educating the public on who the Quakers really were. He is an excellent and very clear writer, not at all difficult to read, and I am thoroughly enjoying the view it gives of Quakers at that time period. He covers their "peculiar" customs, testimonies, discipline, and theology and brief history. What impressed me most in this book is the detailed explanations of the Biblical basis and argumentation for all the beliefs and testimonies of Early Friends. The careful and logical thinking that these non-theologians put into analyzing Scripture is impressive and fascinating. And ALL their theology was based on this careful analysis of Scripture!
I will just give one quote from Clark's book:
"Quakerism may be defined to be an attempt, under divine influence, at practical Christianity as far as it can be carried. They, who profess it, consider themselves bound to regulate their opinions, words, actions, and even outward demeanor, by Christianity, and by Christianity alone."
This "version" of Quaker theology is still alive among Conservative Friends and others.
Blessings on your investigations,
Barb
Jim, check out my upcoming(12/10) blog, "The Case of Religious Order vs. Gospel Order" for cross-examination.
Jim Wilson said:
Good Morning Barb:
I have been reading Clark's book as well and find it an encouraging read. I also appreciate your comment about what I see as the hyper-individualism of our time and how it has impinged on Quaker Faith and Practice. The idea of submitting to a communal discipline is alien to the hyper-individual, but was the norm for Quaker Faith and Practice for a long time. In some ways I get the impression that the early Quaker community resembles the kind of commitments that one finds in Christian monasticism. Of course there are differences, but the sense of commitment to a communal body is what I notice as a shared approach.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post,
Jim
© 2023 Created by QuakerQuaker. Powered by