Ship of Fools: Quaker Meeting House, Painswick, England


imageShip of Fools: Quaker Meeting House, Painswick, England

Tea, biscuits, yellow roses – and a gathered silence

Read the full Mystery Worshipper report here


Comments

  • Box PewBox Pew Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Thanks for your report Urganda. The practice of Quaker worship is so appealing I often find the best moments of a church service is when a long silence is kept after communion, or at some other time.

    It seems a pity so many Friends are no longer specifically Christian. The Friends seem to be going to way of Unitarians as a group i.e. one that was once Christian but which has moved on. Though it is deeply unclear to me what either have moved on to. On the occasions when I have attended a Quaker meeting I have treated it as a Christian meditation session.

    At the worldly level, lets hope that Friend's numbers hold up rather better than the Unitarian movement, which seems to be in a race with Methodism to be the fastest declining denomination in the UK.
  • Yes, I agree with @BoxPew, and hope that the Friends continue to flourish.

    I've always thought of Quakers as primarily a Christian body, perhaps of somewhat less orthodox views (if I can put it like that), so I'm a bit surprised to learn that this is maybe no longer so.
  • SpikeSpike Ecclesiantics & MW Host, Admin Emeritus
    I've always thought of Quakers as primarily a Christian body, perhaps of somewhat less orthodox views (if I can put it like that), so I'm a bit surprised to learn that this is maybe no longer so.

    The impression I get from friends who are Quakers is that the vast majority of members self identify as Christian but it’s not a requirement for membership.
  • Thanks, @Spike - that makes it a bit clearer. I am obviously Correct™!
  • UrgandaUrganda Shipmate
    I haven't done a survey. Probably most of the Friends I know would call themselves Christian but not be too bothered about it. George Fox was fighting for direct contact with the light. He defined this in Christian terms because no other language was available to him.
  • And then there's the old joke about the synagogue that burned down, and the nearby Quaker meeting house offering to let the congregation worship there while the synagogue was being rebuilt -- but that's for another time and place.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    O come now, Miss Amanda - do tell!

    Enquiring minds need to know...
    :wink:

    Er...wait a moment...
    :grin:
  • You could probably guess. When the new synagogue was ready for dedication, very few congregants showed up. The conclusion was that many had become converts to Quakerism. In other words, now "Some of their best Jews are Friends."
  • :lol:

    O dear me :sunglasses:

    No, I hadn't heard it, but thanks for the laugh... :grin:
  • As to his defining everything in Christian terms, George Fox had access to a translation of the Qur'an and used it to attack the way that Quakers and others taken captive by Corsairs were being treated in violation of its teachings. The extract below is from his letter to "The Great Turk and his King at Argiers (Algiers)."



    "It said in your Koran, chap. xv. ‘God guideth not the unjust.’ And therefore the great and eternal God does not guide your people in these impieties. And you say the greatest part of the world are impious, because of the enormities of their crimes: but now look among your own subjects, and see if they are not the same for crimes, impieties, and enormities. And if Jesus the son of Mary, who confirms the ancient scriptures, be full of light, and of the gospel, to conduct the people the right way, with a confirmation of the old testament, and to guide and instruct the righteous, then certain your actions before mentioned at Algiers, and that way, does declare you not to be in this right way of light, and gospel of Jesus.

    And again Mahomet said in your Koran, ‘Such as shall not judge conformable to the laws of God, are unjust:’ and these abominable impieties of yours are not conformable to the law of God, but lead you into the way of destruction, from the way of salvation, and, therefore, unjust.

    And you say in your Koran, chap. v. ‘God loves the just:’ but he hates such unjust actions of yours. And in your Koran you write, 'that God punished the children of Israel that polluted the earth, and opposed the will of God,’ &c. and further you say, ‘He that slayeth an innocent person shall be punished as if he had slain the whole world; and he that shall give his life, shall be recompensed as if he had given life to the whole world.’ Now, has not your practice herein been contrary to your Koran, as in chap. v. p. 64, 65.

    And do not you say ‘you gave them your curse, that altered the words of the scripture;’ and also said, ‘that God loves those who do good.’ chap. v. p. 65.

    Now these bad actions of yours are contrary to the scriptures, and contrary to your Koran, and therefore how can God love you. And again you say, ‘Such as have the knowledge of the scriptures, ought to believe in Jesus before their death; for he shall be a witness against them of their actions in the day of judgment. Now, you Turks, consider how you do acknowledge the scriptures, and believe in Jesus, and in God, who show forth such abominable actions: and do not you think that Jesus the Messiah will be a witness against you at the day of judgment, for your impieties and your infidelity? and must not all such be cast into the lowest hell, and find no relief except they repent in their lifetime, and do good works meet for repentance, and resign yourselves to God, and obey his commandments; as to this effect you say in your Koran, chap. iv. p. 61."

  • UrgandaUrganda Shipmate
    Thank you so much. Who could help loving George Fox? I must read him in greater detail.
  • Spike wrote: »
    I've always thought of Quakers as primarily a Christian body, perhaps of somewhat less orthodox views (if I can put it like that), so I'm a bit surprised to learn that this is maybe no longer so.

    The impression I get from friends who are Quakers is that the vast majority of members self identify as Christian but it’s not a requirement for membership.

    We can all self identify ourselves as something but does that make us so by others' views and opinions?
  • I can't speak for all vFriends, but for me Robert Barclay in his "Apology" explains what the Church is and who is led by the Light of Christ. The Extract is from the anthology of Quaker writings " Quaker Faith and Practice."

    Chapter 27 » 27.05
    Friends and other faiths
    The church [is] no other thing but the society, gathering or company of such as God hath called out of the world and worldly spirit to walk in his light and life… Under this church … are comprehended all, and as many, of whatsoever nation, kindred, tongue or people they be, though outwardly strangers and remote from those who profess Christ and Christianity in words and have the benefit of the Scriptures, as become obedient to the holy light and testimony of God in their hearts… There may be members therefore of this Catholic church both among heathens, Turks, Jews and all the several sorts of Christians, men and women of integrity and simplicity of heart, who … are by the secret touches of this holy light in their souls enlivened and quickened, thereby secretly united to God, and there-through become true members of this Catholic church.

    Robert Barclay, 1678
  • Spike wrote: »
    I've always thought of Quakers as primarily a Christian body, perhaps of somewhat less orthodox views (if I can put it like that), so I'm a bit surprised to learn that this is maybe no longer so.

    The impression I get from friends who are Quakers is that the vast majority of members self identify as Christian but it’s not a requirement for membership.

    We can all self identify ourselves as something but does that make us so by others' views and opinions?

    Do the views of opinions and views of others determine who we are?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    I've always thought of Quakers as primarily a Christian body, perhaps of somewhat less orthodox views (if I can put it like that), so I'm a bit surprised to learn that this is maybe no longer so.

    The impression I get from friends who are Quakers is that the vast majority of members self identify as Christian but it’s not a requirement for membership.

    We can all self identify ourselves as something but does that make us so by others' views and opinions?

    Do the views of opinions and views of others determine who we are?

    Well if I self identify as a poached egg the majority view might be more reliable.
  • UrgandaUrganda Shipmate
    Of course we don't see ourselves clearly (if at all). Religion could help with this. Robert Barclay's 'true members of this Catholic church' can be instinctively recognised by anyone. The Home Office test for a Christian is not the same.
  • Spike wrote: »
    I've always thought of Quakers as primarily a Christian body, perhaps of somewhat less orthodox views (if I can put it like that), so I'm a bit surprised to learn that this is maybe no longer so.

    The impression I get from friends who are Quakers is that the vast majority of members self identify as Christian but it’s not a requirement for membership.

    We can all self identify ourselves as something but does that make us so by others' views and opinions?

    Do the views of opinions and views of others determine who we are?
    Spike wrote: »
    I've always thought of Quakers as primarily a Christian body, perhaps of somewhat less orthodox views (if I can put it like that), so I'm a bit surprised to learn that this is maybe no longer so.

    The impression I get from friends who are Quakers is that the vast majority of members self identify as Christian but it’s not a requirement for membership.

    We can all self identify ourselves as something but does that make us so by others' views and opinions?

    Do the views of opinions and views of others determine who we are?
    There are societal norms for many things.

    The label "Christian" for example suggests a belief in a God who (according to the ancient creeds) created the world and is the sole means by which we can be saved. The latter is not necessarily held by many Quakers who nevertheless claim to be part of a Christian Church.

  • UrgandaUrganda Shipmate
    Is that really what the label 'Christian' suggests? If we consider the term 'unchristian', in everyday language, doesn't 'Christian' mean something more like kind or good-willed?
  • Well, I think ExclamationMark is on the right track, though not everyone would agree about the 'sole means by which we can be saved'.

    To me, the label 'Christian' implies that one is a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ, however those teachings might be expressed!

    Being 'kind or good-willed' is indeed part of being a follower of Jesus Christ, but, of course, those words could be applied to those of any religion (or none).
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Urganda wrote: »
    Is that really what the label 'Christian' suggests? If we consider the term 'unchristian', in everyday language, doesn't 'Christian' mean something more like kind or good-willed?

    So a kind Muslim is a christian?
    They might have a view on that, might see it as an insult ... as would a nice atheist or whatever.
  • UrgandaUrganda Shipmate
    Everyday language is different from technical language. If the outward sign of being a Christian is that we love one another, it may not be a complete definition, but it is a good pointer.
  • And Muslims may very well be kind and love their neighbors as themselves. Christians don't hold a monopoly on love. (Nor on hate.) "No true Scotsman . . . ." and all that.
  • UrgandaUrganda Shipmate
    Glad I looked up No True Scotsman. Thanks.
    So - you tell me what a Christian is and I will tell you if I am one.
  • SarasaSarasa All Saints Host
    I love George Fox too. The priest at the Catholic Church I went to when I realised that I was probably no longer in fellowship with Quakers (much as though I feel comfortable with them) said he always thought Fox, if a Catholic, would have founded his own order, a bit like Loyola. That's a thought I've always found interesting.
    Thanks for the report @Urganda. The first Quaker Meeting I took my husband to (in Whitby) gave us the flowers from the table too. I think it gave him an impression of Meeting that none of the others he attended lived up to.
  • Sarasa wrote: »
    ... he always thought Fox, if a Catholic, would have founded his own order, a bit like Loyola. That's a thought I've always found interesting.
    I think he did - it's called "Friends" aka Quakers.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Urganda wrote: »
    Everyday language is different from technical language. If the outward sign of being a Christian is that we love one another, it may not be a complete definition, but it is a good pointer.

    Would that were true!
  • Reading all this with interest. I've been invited to go to a Meeting in Scotland with my sister in a few weeks and am looking forward to meeting the people there. Enjoyed Miss Amanda's story... I wonder if it applies to presbyterians too?
Sign In or Register to comment.