QuakerInfo.com Forum

rocketsfan05 · Joined: 14 Jul 2010 Posts: 20 Location: New Jersey

Why don't Quakers baptize or take the Lord's Supper?

Shay · Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 885

Don't need to.

wheatpenny · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 41 Location: York, PA, USA

Eph 4:5 says "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". The 'one baptism' is the baptism in the Holy Spirit which happens upon conversion. If we got water baptised too then that would be two baptisms.
When we partake of the Spirit, thru ministry at meeting etc, we are symbolically partaking of His body and blood, no need for actual wine and bread.
Quakers believe that Jesus's statements to be baptised and to partake of the bread and wine are symbolic in the same way that most christians believe His 'command' about foot-washing is symbolic..
_________________
"Hurrah for Quakerism!" (Caroline Fox)

michaeldavidjay · Joined: 21 Dec 2006 Posts: 452

add to this, physical baptism / communion requires a human to dispense these symbol's of God's grace. Quakerism, at its roots, is a response to clerical abuse which was exasperated by the political situation in England. When a human dispenses God's grace -- the human has the ability to use this as a tool of power over others.

A recent example of this abuse would be the Roman Catholic Bishop who forbid John Kerry to be allowed Eucharist just before the 2004 presidential elections... imagine the level of abuse which happened during a civil war, considering that one of the purposes of the war was to determine if the state church was Anglican or Presbyterian.
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote?

BillSamuel · Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:00 pm Post subject:

See the entries for Baptism and The Supper of Our Lord in the Richmond Declaration of Faith.

The position is that Quakers do believe in baptism and communion, but not in the physical forms of them.

This was one part of the Quaker rejection of the rituals and forms of churches in their day. I think the real basis of the position is a focus on the inward rather than the outward. I think the weakness of the position is the implication that the inward and the outward are necessarily opposed.

You will find some Friends groups on the evangelical part of the Friends spectrum that do offer water baptism and communion with the physical elements to those that want it, but this remains very much a minority position among Friends. However, there are some Friends mission fields where water baptism of new converts is the norm.

It is not terribly uncommon today for Friends whose meetings/churches do not practice communion with the outward elements to sometimes visit other churches where they do participate in such communion.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ

Jonathan · Joined: 26 Nov 2011 Posts: 4

I don't see the need to baptize.

kevin roberts · Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:31 pm Post subject:

Jim Wilson · Joined: 13 Sep 2009 Posts: 99 Location: Northern California

The most recent issue of 'Friends' Journal' has an article called 'Quaker Communion'. The article is about a small group of Quakers who decided to engage in a simple communion service. I found the article moving because recently I had felt a leading to practice communion. It was strong enough that I integrated it into my morning prayers. I find it richly satisfying.

I think that part of the reason for the Quaker rejection of communion is how deeply communion was embedded in a specialized priesthood. That is to say for most Christians communion can only happen if the elements are sanctified by a priest. Since Quakers rejected a specialized priesthood this kind of intimate connection between the two would lead to a rejection of a priet-dependent ceremony such as communion.

When I read the primary Bible passages upon which communion is based (in Mathew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians) the request is very simple: 'do this in remembrance of me.' There is nothing in these passages which suggests that one needs a specially dedicated or sanctified person in order to partake of communion. I do it on my own and I find it rewarding and efficacious.

Thy Friend Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

punkrainbow · Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 301 Location: Leeds

To lead on from our Friend's Jim's remarks- the Quaker view on sacraments not only disperses the gift of the 'sacramental' from the hands of a load of religious specialists- it also breaks down the walls between the sacred and profane. The search for the divine becomes profoundly democratic as in it exists in 'people' generally rather than 'persons' who perform sacramental 'stuff'.

Life in general becomes an opportunity to discern 'inward grace through outward signs'. Observing and meditating upon the change in the seasons can be sacramental. So can ordinary kitchen-table fellowship. Taking your dog for a walk can be sacramental if you're alert to what God might wish to reveal through the experience. Relationships can be particularly sacramental, especially if they bring to mind and heart the kind of values which sustain discipleship and community.

The deep meaning of 'sacrament' is not to be found in words or liturgy, but rather discovered in the recognition that the world and everything in it is 'given' from outside ourselves and not an expression of our own 'heads' (solipsism). In confronting that sense of 'outside-ness' and 'otherness' we discover reverence, appreciation and joy. These are Eucharistic feelings in the sense that they sustain the memory of the man who gave his life in love and reverence. In this way remembering 'him' is more than recollecting a set of facts. Its about remembering things about 'him' and taking them into oneself- something you can do anywhere.
_________________
I saw the infinite love of God. I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness.

Jim Wilson · Joined: 13 Sep 2009 Posts: 99 Location: Northern California

A few observations on punkrainbow's post.

I resonate with the idea that the core of communion is the sense of the 'givenness' of existence and how this takes us outside ourselves. But I am of two minds as to how to go about entering into this understanding.

The Quaker view is that all of existence is given, is a gift from God. And therefore one can enter into communion with God anywhere, under any conditions, at any time. I actually believe that. The thing is -- I cannot do it. I mean that in the ordinary ebb and flow of my life I frequently forget the presence of eternity in our midst. I get distracted, irritated, and self-absorbed or obsessed. I wander into political acrimony. At these times the eternal light is simply forgotten.

So even though I agree with the ideal as espoused, I find that I need actual occasions to remind me, once again, of this givenness and presence. One such occasion is silent worship. And I have found that another such occasion is holy communion.

In other words, on a theoretical level I can understand rejecting all ceremonies and forms. But on a practical level, on the level of my daily life, I am not able to actually live up to this espoused ideal. For an ordinary person like myself, I need the ceremonial reminders and focused occasions so that the door to the light of the world remains open.

Best wishes,

Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

kevin roberts · Posted: Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:33 pm Post subject:

if a ritual works for you as a stepping stone, jim, go ahead and use it. the only risk with stepping stones is that sometimes people forget that they're meant to be stepped off as well as stepped on.

the only risk with rites and performances is when people substitute them for the experience they were intended to facilitate. this problem sometimes creeps up on all of us, gradually, until we eventually can't separate the two, and forget which one is the important one.

pilgrim · Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:30 pm Post subject:

Speaking of "forms", can anyone recommend any good resources on the subject?
_________________
in the howling waste of a wilderness:
http://howlingwaste.wordpress.com/

kevin roberts · Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:40 pm Post subject:

you bet.

pilgrim · Posted: Sun Apr 1, 2012 7:56 pm Post subject:

I should have been more clear.

I meant Quaker writings.
_________________
in the howling waste of a wilderness:
http://howlingwaste.wordpress.com/

kevin roberts · Posted: Sun Apr 1, 2012 8:40 pm Post subject:

you bet.

also.

and here too.

if you want to know what quakerism started out as, these references can give you a good idea. since that time, quakerism has wandered off into various other directions that its founders would not have recognized as quakerism. there are more recent people, including friends, who find these old ways too restrictive. maybe they are, or maybe they are just too uncomfortable for more modern sensibilities.

but then, i'm pretty hard-nosed about this stuff. Mr. Green