QuakerInfo.com Forum

[James W]

This thread was started in Q&A. Friend Shay, I thank thee for thy input. I do think we are looking at the same subject from two totally different angles. Thee as a "modern friend, and me as a "primitive".Thee said perhaps ordination could be for performing marriages, funerals, access to hospital rooms, etc. Is that not the duties of the elders? I've not heard of someone "presiding" over friends weddings or funerals, so I cannot see the need there.
Also thee said some are paid by the service such as conducting church service, planning worship, delivering sermons,etc. These things are exactly what early friends spoke against. Matt. 10:8 As for gathering materials, overseeing house programs, signing papers etc., is that not the duty of the clerk and appointed friends at thy meeting?
Friend orPowers, I thank thee also for thy leadings, but i do have a concern. I don't think thee is understanding the views of primitive friends. Thee mentions "ordination by the lord, recognition by man". recognition by man smacks to much of pride I think. Why is recognition by the world of man required for thee to feel entitled to speak the truth, when the truth itself is put down in scriptures for any who would but read and listen? Thee also mentioned friends churches. To us there is no such thing. The church is the people with Jesus as the head. As for the steeple houses, they were set up by man and are not of the Lord. Besides the Lord does not reside houses of brick and lime. I did not understand thy meaning about it being ok to pay those who have dedicated thier lives to ministry. If that is what thou meant then I can find no unity with it. Again Matt.10:8. If one does take money for ministering the truth, then he is out of the light, and out of the wisdom, faith and law of the Lord. He does not possess what he professes and is following the leading of the serpent. Thee also said there is no right way to conduct meeting. Again I find no unity with this. If thee would read the Journal of George Fox, his epistles, and the writings of other early friends, the manner of conducting meeting is quite plainly spelled out.
I mean no offense to thee friend orPowers, but I find very little unity with thy views. As I said before, we are looking at the same thing from totally different angles. Thy Friend James

[orPowers]

I think Shay's point was that some institutions might require "credentials" for entrance to such things as intensive care units and civil registration of marriage, and not that any local church or Yearly Meeting would require them. And yes, the church is spoken of both as the whole body of Christ and as a local unit such as the Church in Phillipi in the New Testament. When I am speaking of the building where local Meetings are held I will say "Meeting House" or "church building" to indicate the facility the local church uses (and some of them do have steeples).
James W. says, "Why is recognition by the world of man required for thee to feel entitled to speak the truth, when the truth itself is put down in scriptures for any who would but read and listen?" You seem not to have considered my explanation that no pastor is deemed to be the only one "licensed" to speak, and that such ordination in NO way restricts the capability of each of us to speak as led. I have a distinct feeling that you are answering points that I have not made. I commend your zeal in supporting the positions of Fox and the early Quakers, but be sure that the point you are making is addressing the message you are supposed to be answering: we communicate better when we clearly understand each other, and I very much want to be sure that we do.
On the question of support for full time ministry please reread 1 Cor chapter 9 for the thoughts of Paul to which I alluded. You should also note that in Matthew 10 those disciples whom Jesus sent out were not to take any means of support, but accept what was given by the people to whom they ministered. Such support is not in conflict with the idea of giving freely what has been freely received; it is only when people are in "ministry" for the money and/or the prestige that has been traditionally given to "professional clergy" that there is a problem as I see it, and I believe that this is what Fox and Naylor and others objected to at that time. Abuses of clergymen who were in it "for their bellies," as Fox said. I think that it is therefore appropriate that the Yearly Meeting record such callings, partly to be clear through the process that it IS a calling and not a means to a living or position of "authority."
Concerning the "right" way to conduct Meeting, Foxes Journal should be taken as descriptive, and not prescriptive. Any time you say that Meeting should be conducted "this way" and no other you are setting limits on the operation of the Spirit and treading on thin ice. I am in no way questioning the value of traditional open worship, and it is my preferred way of conducting Meeting, especially in smaller groups. I also strongly recommend that people who attend large Meetings and especially programmed Meetings also participate in small group activities such as Bible studies. I believe I said that there may be some question as to the value of larger, programmed Meetings, but I gave some reasons for it in the other forum, and I believe that they do fill a need. I hope that we can agree that other forms of Meeting can be valid expressions of the Spirit and means of helping us to live in God's love and demonstrae it in our lives. I hope my tone does not seem brusque, I am pretty matter of fact, but I am really trying for clarity and brevity, two virtues second only to silence.
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/

[orPowers]

After posting my last, I thought it might be good to have quoted some appropriate materiel from the other forum where this topic began for quick and easy reference, so here...out of order... is my last post there with it's quotes of James W which gives the essentials of that start:
Posted: Fri Nov 3, 2006 11:21 am Post subject: Re: ordained preachers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James W says,
"given the beliefs of early friends about each of us being ministers, how can friends call anyone "ordained"? The epistles of George Fox speak against "ordination by man". The Lord ordained all people who are in the light. Why would any true friends meeting need a middle man between themselves and the Lord anyway? Do they no longer believe the Lord will speak to them personally? If so, then are they still truely friends? No one has mentioned it, but are these "ordained" preachers also paid? If so, then then not only are they wrongly "ordained", but they are hirelings teaching out of darkness and not from the wisdom, faith ,and law of the Lord."
I think that you (as with most of us) need to be careful about institutionalizing a reaction to abuse. That a large percentage of "ordained ministers" then and now were in it "for their bellies" is certainly true, but that there are and were dedicated people teaching and leading in the light is also true. Note that your Fox quote specifies "ordained by men," and you should note that those who have recorded "Ministers" speak of ordination by God and recognition by men. Check on the list of gifts given by Christ for the administration of His church and you will see that some are gifted to leadership and some to bringing messages of God (prophecy would be part of that). In the Friends Churches I have seen, a pastor is in no way looked upon as an intermediary, but as a leader and administrator, and every member is free, even asked to minister as led by the Spirit. In today's society, we are far more scattered than the local communities that made it so much easier to BE a community of Friends, and the model of a central Meeting place and people who perform administrative functions as well as pastoral functions serves a need, particularly when there are so many denominations, each doing its own idea of doctrines and procedures that the people who share the community of Friends is even more widespread than would be the case if everyone shared the same ideas about serving the Lord. Perhaps we would be better served if there were more consciousness of house churches and smaller localized Meetings, but I still see the model of the modern "church building" as filling a need. Paul did not accept support from the people he taught, but he also said that there was good reason for others to do so, and in the model of which I am speaking there are people who dedicate their whole working life to that ministry. Yes, if such is the case, such congregations need to take extra care that a "professional" does not "take over," and that certainly requires active participation in the business of the Meeting BY the members, but that is the point of seeking clarity in the recognition of the Yearly Meeting also. In any case, the point here is that there is no one "correct" way of operating a local Meeting, and we should be aware that freedom from the necessity of professionals should not be used to choke us off from the capability to have them as the situation is appropriate.
If that is an adequate answer to the question, fine, but if there needs to be a further exchange of ideas on the subject, I would suggest that it should be furthered in the "Quaker Discussion" Forum

Hmmmm, I also thought I had it set up for my posts to end:

In His Love,
orPowers
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/

[James W]

Friend orPowers,
I,m afraid because of the different views of our sects of quakerism we will never find unity on the subject of hirelings. It does make for lively debate however. The faith and disciplines of primitive friends will not accept a hireling anymore than music, dancing, or television. As to the legal acceptance of friends marriage, they have been legal for a long time without an ordained persons signiture. I do thank thee for thy time and leadings. I do wonder if thee knows that when I say primitive friends I do not refer to the friends of 350 years ago, but a seperate sect of friends referred to today as primitive friends because of our faiths and disciplines. Because of the differences between modern and primitive friends I usually don't post queries, but sometimes it's fun. It's also a forbidden fruit type of thing as we're not supposed to use computers, so my sister is typing this for me. I know I'm still backsliding but..... Anyway I thank thee for thy time, and hope I've not given offence to any here.
Thy friend James W

[Shay]

[orPowers]

[James W]

Friend orPowers, I did not mean offense. I simply stated our belief,(primitives), that there is no need of ordination because the lord gave each of us the right , gift, and responsibility of speaking with him personally and and speaking at meeting. Therefore, and intermediary is not needed. As to taking pay, it is spoken against in scriptures, Matt.10:8,9. George Fox refers to this many times in his journal and epistles. If a man breaks the law of the lord, then he is no longer in the wisdom, faith and law of the lord. If he he professes to live in the light and yet disobeys scriptures, then is he not in darkness, and led by the ruler of the darkness? In his journal, George Fox says in chapter 2, the lord showed him how the physcians, lawyers and divinity, (clergy) were out of the wisdom, faith and law of the lord. There is also an entire epistle speaking against hirelings. Thee said thy goal was to get me to modify my statement, which is something I'll not do. That's why we still follow beliefs and practices layed down by the early friends and will not "evolve" as modern friends have. The last line of thy last reply said we should not condemn our brothers for their different ideas about serving the lord. I do find unity with that, and that is why I do not have the right to ask thee to change thy statement that paying a preacher is OK. Thee is as entitled to thy beliefs as I am mine. As i said no offence was meant and I apologise if I have not behaved in the manner of friends toward thee or any here. Thy friend James

[orPowers]

Two major areas of your post I wish to address, as I had already pointed out that recording a pastor does not make him an intermediary.

[James W]

Friend orPowers, I had a concern about posting here before I ever asked my sister to help me do so. I see now that my concern was valid. This started out as me simply stating a basic belief and thee disagreed as is thy right. But it seems now to have caused thee distress. I'll only say this and then leave this frivolous amusement alone as I should have.
I don't know how long thee has been a friend, but one of the basic beliefs of the early friends was that any clergy was unnessesary. Since clergy were not needed, there was no such thing as ordination in quakerism. Since they did not believe in a need for clergy, they preached against all clergy as false teachers. The building called churches were called (in derision), steeplehouses. They were considered false as well because they set up of man and not by the lord. This is the history of quakerism. Today there are friends who do use payed hirelings, have programmed services etc. This is the liberal branch of quakerism. The branch to which I belong is on the other end of the spectrum. We still believe as the early friend did. Both sides of quakerism believe their way to be true quakerism, along with all other branches in between.
I'll not tell thee thy beliefs are wrong as I do not have the right to judge any person. Primitive friends believe that any clergy from any relgion are false teachers and out of the light. Hirelings are even worse. I'm sorry if that sounds confrontational, or causes thee distress, but that is the belief of the primitive denomination, not just me.
As for friendsweddings. I've been to three. After an elder spoke a few minutes about marriage, we sat in silence for about 45 min,or an hour, and then the bride and groom stood and said their vows. Then all shook hands and all present signed the marriage certificate. This is a friends marriage as we conduct it. It is legal as far any know and has never been questioned. As it seems I've caused some contention here, I'll not post again, and I apologise to for any distress I've caused.
Thy Friend James

[orPowers]

No problem here. I think that we certainly understand what each believes and I am now clear on what you base your belief. Thank you.

In His Love,
orPowers
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/