Jun 11
6

Philip Gulley – The Historical Quaker

9 Comments

We have built a vast institution based on these “hints” Jesus gave us.  But we should never delude ourselves into thinking that today’s church sprang directly from the mind and witness of Jesus.  All we have is extrapolation, a few bones upon which have been erected a larger organism.” –Philip Gulley: If the Church Were Christian.

“Founded by George Fox in England during the 1640s, early Quakerism eschewed the creeds, sacraments and hierarchies of the established Christian churches. Instead, Quakers preached that the “inner light of God” avails itself to all. Instead of church services, many held “meetings” in which believers waited in expectant silence for the still small voice of the divine.”[1]

Although the early Quakers had a different way of “doing church.” They shared much in common with other forms of Christianity:

“We tenderly and earnestly advise and exhort all parents and heads of families, that they endeavour to instruct their children and families in the doctrines and precepts of the Christian religion, as contained in the scriptures; and that they excite them to the diligent reading of those excellent writings, which plainly set forth the miraculous conception, birth, holy life, wonderful works, blessed example, meritorious death, and glorious resurrection, ascension and mediation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. . .” –Rules of Discipline, 1732. [2]

Today, there are Quakers who continue to follow the principles of George Fox and the first Quakers.  They continue to individually listen for “the still small voice” as they are instructed by the scriptures and submit themselves to the discernment of others in the Meeting for Worship.[3]

In these first meetings no individual voice was greater than another.  But, eventually “hireling pastors”[4] and elders and others were thought to hear a clearer, more reliable voice, but not without opposition and eventual division.  Some splits were simply over personalities, Hicksites, Wilburites and Gurneyites.  Other Quakers are now:

  • Conservative or Liberal or Othodox
  • or evangelical
  • traditional or emerging
  • and some are atheists.[5]

If, as Gulley writes, it is “arrogant for any of us to suggest that we alone have most accurately discerned the true intentions of Jesus,” why would I want to join a conservative Meeting when I am liberal and then insist that the Meeting become liberal?  Or, be offended that I am refused communion at a Catholic Mass?  Or, to be offended by the wisdom and discernment of a society I have willingly joined.

The Quakers or the Religious Society of Friends may not be what Jesus intended, but can we know what George Fox and the first Quakers intended?

More Questions:

  • What is a Quaker without the scriptures?
  • What is a Quaker without the inner light?
  • What is a Quaker without the discernment of the community?
  • What is a Quaker without God?

An Ultimate Question:

  • Did God create humanity in his image or are we creating a god in our image

Bibliography:

 

 

[1] Quakers Ask an Essential Question: What Do We Believe, and Why? by Daniel Burke, Religion New Service: Posted on Thu Aug 23 2007

[2] Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in Quaker Heritage Press, accessed June 6, 2011.

[3] Quaker Life May/June 2011  Authority and Love By Dortha Meredith

[4] The first Quakers would have been “disowned” someone who paid a pastor.

Tags: , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on June 6, 2011 at 1:22 AM. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in Religious Society of Friends by Dennis Wilhoit 9 Comments

  • Pmpope68

    “If, as Gulley writes, it is “arrogant for any of us to suggest that we alone have most accurately discerned the true intentions of Jesus,” why would I want to join a conservative Meeting when I am liberal and then insist that the Meeting become liberal?  Or, be offended that I am refused communion at a Catholic Mass?  Or, to be offended by the wisdom and discernment of a society I have willingly joined.”
    Then this leaves no place for change in any church.  We should just join, follow the rules and shut up.  Never mind that each person in the meeting or church has a unique contribution.  Maybe it’s not for liberals to change a conservative meeting, etc. but don’t we individually have something to offer the fellowships of which we are a part?  How do we make needed change if we are not even open to people offering their unique perspectives?  Maybe they have something to offer our meetings that would be beneficial.  Apart from our denomimations and movements, we are all part of the family of God.  Surely we can learn and benefit from one another. 

  • Micah Bales

    “…we should never delude ourselves into thinking that today’s church sprang directly from the mind and witness of Jesus.  All we have is extrapolation, a few bones upon which have been erected a larger organism.” –Philip Gulley: If the Church Were Christian.”

    This quote, coming as it does from a Friends minister, disheartens me greatly. The very basis of the Quaker tradition is the experience and conviction that Jesus Christ is alive, present and guiding his Church today. Jesus is not the dead founder of the Christian religion; he is the living Head of the Body of Christ. We know him personally. When we follow his leading, we become his friends. This is what makes us the Church.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, church is a messy business. I believe that our ideas of church,
    Christianity and Jesus should change and I believe that each person does
    have a unique contribution to offer.

    But, the Catholic Church has a distinctive identity. It assumes that the
    Pope is the Vicar of Christ, that the voice of Jesus is heard through the
    voice of the priest. If I believe that is untrue, and God speaks to me as
    clearly as he does the priest, I am not a Catholic. I am something else. So,
    to speak bluntly, if I choose to become a Catholic, I understand that that
    means I accept that God speaks to me through the priest, and if I presume to
    have something to offer, I should just “shut up.”

    But, as Micah says, if I am convinced that “Jesus Christ is alive, present
    and guiding his Church today,” and we can “know him personally” I assume
    that you can know him as well as I. That is what it means to be a Quaker.
    That is not what it means to be Catholic.

    The assumption of Catholicism is that the individual does not have something
    to offer the fellowship that contradicts the priest.

    The assumption of the Religious Society of Friends is that the individual
    does have something to offer, but only if it is accepted by the community.

    It just seems to me that it would be dishonest and disrespectful to join
    either fellowship and then ask that they become something other than who
    they are.

  • Pmpope68

    Yes, you are right.  Joining a fellowship and then asking “that they become something other than who they are” is dishonest if that is one’s agenda.  I’m speaking more from the perspective of joining a fellowship and out of love for Christ and the Church trying to make contributions to that fellowship that are rejected for any number of illegitimate reasons:  you’re not part of the in-crowd that runs said church, you haven’t quite paid your dues, you’re going against the grain of what’s accepted, etc., ad nauseum.  I probably should have made that clear in my initial comments. 

    As one who has been disrespected for simply bringing different ideas and being different I have had to examine myself to make sure that I wasn’t trying remake the fellowship over in my image.  And in fact, I wasn’t.  Many of the things I worked for would have well been in line with Quaker teaching but the meeting picked and chose which parts of that teaching they followed.  They ascribed much more to evangelical ethos than Quaker teachings.  Not that there’s anything wrong with evangelicalism at its core, but when we start to follow strains of any movement in a way that satisifies our sensibilities rather than the parts that closely align with Christ’s teachings, we’re in danger of compromising the faith, in my opinion. 

  • Rene Lape

    I share your concerns completely. If God has given me an “opening” at all in my 65 years or a “calling,” it is to raise the issue of Christian divisiveness. I think the voices of the Reformation were important and prophetic. I think the insights of Fox into the Christian gospel were amazing and also prophetic, but walking away and starting the whole thing over is simple pridefulness. The prophets of old did not leave their people – they tried to guide them, they tried to get them to see where they’d gone wrong. I think that’s what Christians with prophetic insights need to do.

  • Anonymous

    Your clarification is very helpful. I have had similar experiences and I
    continue to struggle with it: how I should respond and how I should expect
    others to respond to my “insights.” Looking back, I think I have caused
    more harm than necessary.

    I have come to the conclusion that a big question is whether the church is
    an institution or a fellowship. I believe it is a fellowship. But I do my
    best to maintain good relations with my “institutional” brothers and
    sisters. For my friends who see the church as an institution, I try to
    respect their convictions about church, and emphasize that we have the same
    Lord and then look for opportunities to questions their assumptions.

    But, I have given up on the idea of trying to bring about change from “the
    inside.” An institution can never become a fellowship.

  • Anonymous

    I must confess that I have “walked away” three times. Perhaps the first two
    out of pride, I hope the last will be proven more worthy. And, I have
    worked hard to keep the relationships with brothers and sisters from my past
    denominational affiliations.

    This is my question: Is “starting the thing over” walking away, or walking
    toward Jesus? If a church sets up a belief system in opposition to the
    church Jesus is building, who is leaving?

  • Anonymous

    That’s fine until it becomes personal as it did in my case.  When people become threatened they react in sometimes very hurtful ways.  

    I have also thought change from the inside was more helpful as people tend to respect you more when you become part of the fellowship as opposed to trying to impose change as an outsider.  Of course, this is contingent on people allowing you to become an insider.  

    But I guess you’re right about an institution not becoming a fellowship.  I think institutional thinking is quite entrenched and does not change easily without a massive shakeup.  

  • Anonymous

    The prophets of old did not in fact leave their people, but the early Church was different in that it really was seen as one church and in fact, was one church.  Where actually would the prophets have gone?  How many churches were in any given area?  Now we have denominations and sects within denominations and churches (several, in some cases) in a typical city block.  So, to leave a church now means the person has a myriad of choices and can still be part of the body of Christ. 

    I think there also was much more of a family feeling and if there were problems (which, the scripture does not provide us with a detailed accounting of what went on in each and every church) there probably was more of an intention to work things out.  Again, where would they have gone?  Nowadays, if there are issues, maybe a few members might make an attempt to reach out and make things right, but by and large, we just don’t deal with messes.  People leave and we never deal with the matters at hand.  The family is fractured, but we don’t talk about the issues.  That’s dysfunction at its best.