Are Quakers Protestants?
Read the article this discussion is about
- biogardener
- Bill_Samuel
- DTS
- biogardener
- Bill_Samuel
- DonFisher
- Minnie
- Bill_Samuel
- Minnie
- biogardener
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» biogardener - surprised
Bill, I like the way that you point out the differences between different groups, especially relating to the main emphasis of worship. I am surprised, though, by one statement in your article, the one about "inner sense of guilt and original sin" which you see in Protestants. To judge from what I have heard and read, that may be true of Calvinists, although I have no personal experience with their teaching. I have encountered the concept in a few evangelical churches, though, but I don't want to name them, because all of those denominations are divided into several branches with differing the emphases.It certainly is not true of the many Protestant churches of my association. I have many years of background in Lutheran teaching, and have not heard "original sin" mentioned. Their stongest emphasis is "justification by faith."
Don't ask me about the Anglican emphasis, because in Canada there are more types of Anglicans than there are churches. The ones I know best vary from Charismatic, with the emphasis of the manifestations of Holy Spirit, to what Anglicans call "High Church" with the emphasis on liturgy. The one thing which Anglicans have in common is their tolerance of divergent forms of worship. Unlike the Lutherans, they are governed by one religious body. They actually all get together to elect a bishop. That takes tolerance.
Like you, Minnie inspired me to write two articles:
- What is a Christian?" answers Minnie's question by looking at the words "Christian," "Protestant," and "Catholic" from a philological and historial view. As you probably know, I am a philologist by training and have taught languages for 35 years. I could not answer Minnie's question without looking at the derivation of those labels.
- "What is your religion?" looks at my own background in more denominations than I can count, feeling comfortable in all of them. I also poke a little fun at the government forms which require Christians to chose a denomination whereas other religions are not subdivided.
My topic of Natural Health demands a different emphasis, so I mainly look at how our attitude toward religious association affects our health and happiness. Actually, I don't spell it out. I expect my readers to draw their own conclusions.
-- posted by biogardener
» Bill_Samuel - Re: surprised
In response to message posted by biogardener:The contrasts I drew are between early Quakers and their perception of Protestants of that day, which because of where Quakerism developed would be mainly British Protestants. I do believe Calvinist type thinking was dominant among British Protestants of that era.
Early Quakers objected that others were "pleading for sin." Their arguments closely parallel similar ones by the apostle Paul against those of his day who had gotten off course.
-- posted by Bill_Samuel
» DTS - Re: Re: surprised
In response to message posted by Bill_Samuel:It is impossible to speak to this subject with any mutual understanding unless there are two categories of examination. Quakerism and other Protestant denominations as founded and (2)Quakerism and other Protestant denominations as they exist today.
This tacitly accepts Quakerism (today) as a protestant denomination. This seems to be the case. FGC Quakers align themselves with mainstream Protestants in belief and political pressures despite their unique silent worship form. FUM Quakers are largely evangelical Protestant denominations in worship form as well as theology.
That all Quaker 'denominations' go back to George Fox is no more definitive than that all Luther schisms go back to Luther, or all Anglican-Episcopalean to Henry VIII.
In any belief system, including political systems, there is a vast difference to be found in examining history or ideal or practice.
-- posted by DTS
» biogardener - Another point
I just noticed another point, Bill. You say that "the Protestants replaced liturgy with a sermon as the center of worship." I would reword that to "the Protestants shifted the center of worship from the liturgy to a sermon." The liturgy did not get replaced at all. Having been organist in various denominations, I am well aware of the various forms of liturgy, because I have to adapt to all of them, including to various forms of liturgy from one service to the next in the same denomination. There is a lot of bickering among parishioners about forms of liturgy, each claiming that theirs is the only correct form. I see more similarities than differences in them. Some of the wording has not changed in hundreds of years, and much of it predates the Reformation.The minister may wish his sermon to be the center of the service, but talking to parishioners, I find that to many of them the liturgy is still the focal point in the service. Parishioners don't seem to get upset by meaningless sermons, but they do get upset by changes in the liturgy.
What you say is true for the Evangelical churches, but not for the mainstream Protestant churches, and I say that with ample experience in both, because I have been and still am involved in more denominations than I remember.
-- posted by biogardener
» Bill_Samuel - Re: Another point
In response to message posted by biogardener:It is certainly true that Protestant churches generally have some liturgy, varying greatly among the churches. Despite the seemingly central place of the sermon in many Protestant churches, and the fact that it is usually the single element to which most time is devoted (although that may be less true now than a few decades ago), you are quite right that many churchgoers may not treat it as central.
In talking with members of my late sister's church, it seemed that none of them were very happy with the sermons but they were happy with the church. Now this is a Methodist church, certainly not very liturgical in the traditional sense, but clearly both other elements of the service and of the broader church life seemed more central to those active in the church than the sermons. Probably many of them would find it hard to articulate what was the focal point of the service, whereas Catholics would have no problem with that at all.
In the pentecostal world with which I have some experience, the pastor's message (they wouldn't use the term sermon) may be quite important as teaching but they don't regard it as part of worship. What is central in worship is not really a particular liturgy or element, but the spirit of the worship and the sense of Christ's presence. Ad a Quaker, I relate strongly to this.
-- posted by Bill_Samuel
» DonFisher - Quakers as Protestants
I agree that at least the early Quakers would not be regarded as Protestants. Both "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" (the Scriputres alone and Faith alone) are classic Protestant concepts which run counter to classic Quaker concepts.Don Fisher
-- posted by DonFisher
» Minnie - Outstanding Article!!!
Bill, I just read your article through your recap. I'm sure that I read it shortly after you published it, but was extremely busy at that time.I just put a link into my article at http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/3830... "Protestant Denominations and Differences in America".
Even though I was raised in Protestant churches, I wasn't aware of "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" being more important than the Spirit of Christ.
It's possible that I didn't listen to particular messages so much as retain the general concept that Jesus loves me.
I realize that some Protestants still have a "sin consciousness" and wonder if it's due to the confusion that can arise when unbelievers in the church are given a call to repent.
Bill, your article gives a lot of food for thought. Thanks for writing it!
-- posted by Minnie
» Bill_Samuel - Re: Outstanding Article!!!
In response to message posted by Minnie:Thanks for your comments. I did want to address one point:
Even though I was raised in Protestant churches, I wasn't aware of "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" being more important than the Spirit of Christ.
I simply said the reverse was true for Friends, but did not state what was more important for protestants. Further, I noted that Protestants have changed since the 17th century when the differences were originally expressed.
-- posted by Bill_Samuel
» Minnie - Re: Re: Outstanding Article!!!
In response to message posted by Bill_Samuel:Bill, I liked the way that you stated it in your article. I really don't remember too much doctrine being preached when I was real young . . . it must have been, but I don't recall any specifics other than "Jesus loves me".
I suspect that I had my head in the clouds as a child. The hymns stuck more in my head than the sermons.
I think that it's absolutely wonderful that the Quakers place their focus on the Spirit of Christ and that they accept His presence in their worship.
It wasn't until adulthood that I really started to accept the Spirit of Christ as being in a continual relationship with me.
I think that you are right about some Protestants having changed. I know that my specific beliefs have changed a lot since childhood. Hopefully, the church will be progressively transformed and come to truly understand their relationship to Jesus Christ as a real person.
Bill, thanks again for the fantastic article!
-- posted by Minnie
» biogardener - Talking about Methodists
Talking about Methodists, you would probably be shocked to hear what happened to them in Canada. They united with several other mainstream protestant churches to form what is known as "The United Church of Canada." Naturally, when so many churches unite, the doctrine is reduced to the least common denominator. As a result, this church is little more than a social and moral union, not that much different from Unitarians. They do not require any adherence to specific tenets of faith, do not believe in the divinity of Christ or the inspiration of Scripture.I have no use for these big unions. Historically, they have all been disasters. Supposedly, the Lutherans and Anglicans have recently joined to accept a common liturgy. Well, I have not seen any evidence of that at the local level. The Lutherans cannot even agree among themselves. Why would they want to agree with Anglicans first?
I quite enjoy the differences in liturgy, even though I did not grow up in a liturgical setting. I also enjoy the differences between different denominations. That gives everyone a chance to find something to his own liking. As for me, I find none of the churches perfect for me, but I enjoy fellowship in them all. I always look past the outward appearances to the Scriptural basis, and I try to meet the needs of the people who cross my path.
-- posted by biogardener
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.