Bill Rushby wrote:Josh wrote: "Quakers never recognised (sic) the principle of headship at all."
Josh, can you document this assertion? I doubt it!
What is Quaker teaching on 1 Cor. 11?
Bill Rushby wrote:Josh wrote: "Quakers never recognised (sic) the principle of headship at all."
Josh, can you document this assertion? I doubt it!
reading through those pages+pages of marriages, i saw so many surnames of people i've met all through my life, it felt almost eery to think how there may be so many more family ties than most of us are aware. i used to wonder about this when i visited a certain cemetery with my mother. her grandparents were buried there, but, as i walked around, i recognized a number of family names i recognized of local business people, lawyers, etc., so, thinking, those people must have roots in this same nearby small town in earlier years.Bill wrote:
Hello, Temporal1!
In *The Churching of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy *,
Rodney Stark and Roger Finke claim (as I recall) that at one time one in four people in the American colonies were affiliated with the Society of Friends.
So lots of Americans of British descent (including Irish and Welsh) have Quaker ancestry.
For better or for worse, Friends are by nature destined to be a minority religious tradition.
i will have to try to remember not to use the naughty word.Bill wrote:
Yes, "disownment" is still practiced among Friends. My wife and I were disowned for rather spurious reasons. They called it "releasing" us. These days disownment is a naughty word!
We were put out for alleged lack of interest in the Society of Friends!
The same month we were "released," I read a scholarly paper at the conference of Quaker historiansj and archivists. Doesn't sound like a lack of interest in Friends, to me!!
After having read the paper in various incarnations at three academic conferences, it was finally published in the Fall, 2016, issue of *Quaker History*; the title is "Ann Branson and the Eclipse of Oracular Ministry in 19th Century Quakerism."
i wonder if this happens with some frequency? Friends attending/joining Mennonite fellowships? may be.Bill wrote:
That same year the Southeastern Conference of Mennonites began a mission outreach in Highland County VA, where we lived. We had prior Southeastern connections, and began attending the new fellowship.
My wife and I both had previous Mennonite (and in my case, German Baptist) relationships.
We remained Friends, but were warmly received by members of the new group. My wife and son are buried in their cemetery.
Bill wrote:
Concerning whether Friends are Anabaptists, much depends upon whether these terms are construed loosely or very narrowly. Friends have not on a widespread basis practiced the ordinances, so a narrow interpretation would exclude them from the Anabaptist category.
Also, many Friends would not approach their faith from an Anabaptist frame of reference, so they would be excluded too.
The problem with a narrow interpretation of "Anabaptist" would be that many Mennonites and Brethren would also be excluded by that understanding of "Anabaptist."
From an operational standpoint, the Conservative Friends (and sometimes other Quaker groups) are treated by the larger Anabaptist community as falling within their purview.
i have read your paper, i will have to read it again, as i mull over all that you covered.Bill wrote:
If you want to read my paper on "Conservative Friends," it is available online at http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt ... loads.html.
That list also includes papers on Friends United Meeting and Evangelical Friends International.
The paper on Friends General Conference didn't make the list, and there was no paper on Central Yearly Meeting of Friends, a Holiness body with Anabaptist features.
(i added bold.)From Page 12 / Conclusion
Historically-normed Conservative Quakerism proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, the critical importance of the Bible, and the continuing relevance of the Quaker tradition. This faith commends itself to serious seekers, and draws them to Conservative meetings. What these inquirers actually find among Conservative Friends is often disappointing. Many Friends have cast aside their own heritage, choosing Quaker liberalism instead. Others are unable to articulate their faith, and do not know how to relate to seekers. In Ohio newcomers have frequently run up against kin- and school-related barriers to acceptance, and have been told “you are not one of us.”
Conservative Friends need to address several basic issues before they can move forward. Some I have already identified. But there are others. They equivocate concerning the role of the Bible in the faith community, in an age and culture where such equivocation does not work well.
They retain birthright membership, which compromises the integrity of the church.
Personal holiness, once viewed as indispensable, is no longer seen by many as essential.
Silence and beside-the-point queries are often used as covers for avoiding honest dialogue about serious problems. Back-room maneuvering and manipulation frequently supplant genuine searching together for God’s will. Friends go unchallenged when they confuse their personal agendas with the Shepherd’s voice.
Sometimes, it seems that the Conservative Quaker tradition is a vision in search of a people!
“Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets” Num. 29.14 (KJV),
and that Conservative Friends would be found among them!