Talk:Quakers

Material removed from another page

The following I remmoved from the disambiguation page Sylvania. I have no idea why it was there.

I do not feel competent to determine if any of this should be in a Quaker article so am putting it here for whatever use anyone cares to make of it.

Correcting information

The article begins with the following: "Quakers are people who belong to a historically Protestant Christian set of denominations known formally as the Religious Society of Friends. Members of these movements are generally united by a belief..." Most of this just isn't true.

Quakers have not historically considered themselves 'Protestant', counting themselves as a distinct movement in Christianity. Other Protestants haven't typically considered Quakers Protestant either. See e.g. http://www.quakerinfo.com/quakprot.shtml.

Furthermore, it's true but rather uninformative to say that Quakers are historically Christian, since only some Quakers would count themselves Christian today.

The Religious Society of Friends is singular, not a set of denominations. It's one Society, made up of Yearly Meetings, which are nothing like denominations. The Yearly Meetings have a fundamental unity, despite their differences, and are connected through the Friends Worldwide Committee for Consultation (FWCC) and other bodies. Quakers all recognise each other as Friends, members of one Religious Society. The same problem occurs with talk of 'movements'.

It's not really true that Quakers are united by any particular belief. They're united by a shared way of living and some common practices, more so than by any particular beliefs (even if a belief in the centrality of the Inward Light is very common).

- you will need references to reliable sources WP:RS in accordance with WP:ATT & WP:VERIFY to support these claims - without citations to scholarly works it is original research per WP:NOR - hope you can provide sources beyond Quaker websites - Epinoia (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

One should have reliable sources for the information that already is in the article, as well. For example, the assertion that this is an "historically Protestant Christian sect" is not found any the source cited for that statement, and thus may be removed per policy.--~TPW 18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

- in the article Nonconformist (Protestantism) it says, "By the late 19th century the term [Nonconformist] specifically included other Reformed Christians (Presbyterians and Congregationalists), plus the Baptists, Brethren, Methodists, and Quakers." and is referenced to Peberdy, Robert; Waller, Philip (2 December 2020). A Dictionary of British and Irish History. John Wiley & Sons. p. 446. ISBN 978-0-631-20154-0. - Epinoia (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the term 'nonconformists' also referred explicitly to Roman Catholics, who obviously were not regarded as Protestant. See e.g. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/religion/overview/catholicsnonconformists-/. 2A02:C7F:5D24:7E00:90F:DA65:C105:41A0 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A much, much better introduction to Quakers (particularly as they exist today) can be found here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/quakers_1.shtml. Quakers are described as a group with Christian roots, and the point is explicitly made that many no longer consider themselves Christian (let alone Protestant).

A distinction between Quakers and Protestants is very common in Ireland (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/quakers-not-protestants-1.1309994). Here's another example of Quakers being described as rooted in Christianity, but not as a Christian denomination: https://www.ed.ac.uk/chaplaincy/multifaith-and-belief/religion-and-belief/quakerism.

At the very least, it seems strange for a Wikipedia entry to take a contentious position on the question whether Quakers are Protestants, when this is hardly necessary for introducing the subject! 2A02:C7F:5D24:7E00:90F:DA65:C105:41A0 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused - currently the only source is Friends General Conference, which *is* a Quaker website. But if you look at non-Quaker websites - the BBC, for example - you don't get this information (never mind that you don't get it on the FGC website either). So it really ought to be removed. 2A02:C7F:5D24:7E00:90F:DA65:C105:41A0 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

- in my understanding, Quakers who do not identify as protestants or Christians are limited to unprogrammed meetings, now a minority among Quakers - the article says, "Some 89% of Quakers worldwide belong to "evangelical" and "programmed" branches,[10] that hold services with singing and a prepared Bible message coordinated by a pastor." - if they are reading passages from the bible it would indicate that they identify as Christians - Quakerism is very diverse and a description that includes everyone is very difficult, but in my understanding, Quakers were always more God-centered than Christ-centered, stressing the light within and direct communication with God and have not had teachings on the Trinity with God, Christ and Spirit, but often use God and Spirit interchangeably - Epinoia (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

- I just came across this quote from George Fox, "I knew nothing but pureness, and innocence, and righteousness, being renewed up into the image of God by Christ Jesus..." so there is no doubt that Quakers began as a Christian sect - Epinoia (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, sure, the early Friends saw themselves as 'primitive Christianity revived'. (Note: not as Protestants!) But this is true of only a subset of Quakers today, and any definition of the term ought to take that into account. Also, the Quaker use of the term 'Christ' is quite idiosyncratic, even among early Friends; it's somewhat comparable in that sense to the use of that term by Shakers. Cf. Quaker talk of the 'inward Christ'. 2A02:C7F:5D24:7E00:D843:E0CC:71A2:2338 (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Note also the sentiment of perfectionism expressed here, which would (to put it lightly) not sit well with most Protestant theology! 2A02:C7F:5D24:7E00:D843:E0CC:71A2:2338 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

- also, early Quakers were closely aligned with the Collegiants, founded among the protestant Arminians and Anabaptists in Holland - Quaker William Ames preached to the Collegiants - the Quaker testimonies to peace and simplicity are in accord with other Anabaptist groups such as Mennonites, Amish, etc. - a Collegiant text, The Light upon the Candlestick was popular among English Quakers and for a time credited to William Ames, although it was also credited to Baruch Spinoza - Epinoia (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There was dialogue with the Collegiants to my understanding, but also pretty significant disagreements and differences, and I don't think there was much convincing going on either way. Anabaptists and Quakers agree about certain things, particularly certain ethical positions (Quakers are the only non-Anabaptist 'historic peace church'). But they also disagree very seriously about, e.g., the role of the Bible, the nature of baptism, the nature of salvation, eschatology, Christology, revelation, the priesthood of all believers, church membership, and so on. Even about the grounds of pacifism. So even if we recognize Anabaptists as Protestant - under the heading 'radical reformation', though Anabaptists don't tend to think of themselves as Protestant, rather distinguishing themselves from Lutheranism and Calvinism - that still doesn't tell us much about Quakers, who are clearly much further from mainstream Protestantism. 2A02:C7F:5D24:7E00:D843:E0CC:71A2:2338 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, but if you define Quakerism generally as Christian, you won't be able to explain how programmed and unprogrammed Yearly Meetings are unified - for example, under umbrella Quaker organizations like the Friends Worldwide Committee for Consultation. Again, that's why I think it is so much safer, more accurately capturing the term Quaker's actual extension, to refer to Quakers as a group with Christian roots, or as historically Christian, rather than Christian and historically Protestant. As to the latter point: many of the doctrines that single out Protestantism, like sola scriptura and salvation by faith alone, were roundly rejected by Quakers from the start, so identifying them with Protestantism will be at best misleading. I think you're right to suggest that point about a sort of blurry Trinitarianism... another reason why identification with Protestantism is probably quite misleading. 2A02:C7F:5D24:7E00:D843:E0CC:71A2:2338 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I am no specialist in the history of Protestantism. My specialty is more related to the 17th century, which marks the beginning of the Quakers. From much of the Quaker history I've read about so far, one initial point seems to be very clear. The Quakers that existed at the beginning, from their beginnings in the "Puritan revolution" and up to the return of the monarchy in 1660, are a very different "species" from the Quaker movement that got consolidated toward the end of the 17th century under the sole leadership of George Fox and Margaret Fell. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Note - Also, the final break between the Collegiants in Amsterdam and the Quakers in London and in Amsterdam seems to be directly connected to the very tragic episode of the Quaker James Nayler in 1656. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

Greetings: The article fails the WP:B-class criteria. It is tagged with "citation needed" from September 2018, in the "Universalist" subsection, and in the "Calendar and church holidays" subsection from October 2022, as well as an August 2019 "needs additional citation" section tag.

The B-class criteria (#1) states, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)