QuakerInfo.com Forum

Hope · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 137 Location: England

Hello everyone,
does anyone of you have a dual membership with Friends and another church? -if yes what are your reasons for this?
I'm asking because I'm considering to become a member of the Anglican Church aswell as a (official) member of Quakers.
My reason for this is that I find both churches and communities complement each other and each can offer something which the other can't.
I just can find a lot of good in either side.
What are Friends thoughts on this?
_________________
Light & Love
Hope
xx

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

Hey Hope,

Hope · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 137 Location: England

Thank you, punkrainbow, for your reply.

Dan · Joined: 03 Dec 2003 Posts: 273 Location: midwest

For those Friends who have come from a long line of Friends going back to the 1600's, we would have all had ancestors who were Anglican. They were not able to hold to traditional "Quaker" beliefs and remain in the Anglican church. In fact some were thrown out of the Church of England and many suffered great punishement and torture. Some even were killed for their faith. Many gladly embraced the Friends movement, and having put their hand to the plow turned not back. They counted it great joy to suffer for Christ.

I believe the same hierarchical, sacramental, militaristic church of centuries ago may well exist. Our forefathers broke ties with this gladly to meet with Christ one on one.

The scriptures say: "Can two walk together except they be agreed". Friend, I would encourage thee to seek where God would have thee to be, then throw thyself wholeheartedly to it, make but sure thee is following His leading.

Thy Friend,
Dan

Anthony · Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 1542

This may be of interest:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article665111.ece

trueblood · Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 13

Hope, to take it one step further, I suppose one needn't really be a member of any particular religion but attend and worship as you please and as your own inner light directs you. Interesting article Anthony, I can see why some aspects of certain liturgies trouble Terry Waite, while at the same time agree that evensong can be a wonderfully contemplative experience. It becomes difficult to think that there is an either/or situation, although if one desires to be a "full member" of one thing, it often means excluding full membership in something else.

punkrainbow, I think that there was a time when the church hierarchy would have been in direct conflict, but in those days the Parish system was tied in with local laws, constabulary, tithing, etc, in such a way that doesn't exist today or at least doesn't impact the average citizen in quite the same way. One can take from an Anglican service what you will, and leave the rest.

If I am not mistaken the entire custom of using thee and thou had to do with leveling the playing field when it came to speaking with your supposed social superiors. In the 1600's, many parish priests were second sons of the gentry who frequently had to choose a career either in the military or the priesthood. Certainly in that era it was seen as "the priesthood shepherding the laity". When the clergy in those days addressed those perceived to be social inferiors, they used thee and thou, while the people below were expected to use "you" in speaking to them. By using thee and thou all the time..... As the necessity for this faded as language changed, many Quakers dropped the old way of speaking.

Dan, yes the 1600's were difficult times. I have a direct ancestor who died in Lincoln Castle on a tithe charge in 1659. But in this case it was the Puritans not the Anglicans who did the imprisoning. The treatment of Quakers by the Puritans on both sides of the Atlantic is lamentable. Many Quakers were hanged on Boston Common. At any rate, those were extreme times, and I would hope that today the planet has evolved to a degree which would allow more of a live and let live attitude in the spirit of inclusiveness.

Hope · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 137 Location: England

Thank you, Friends, for your replies.
Friend "trueblood" speaks my mind.

Still I feel the need to become a "proper" member of one church. That is because I never had any sense of belonging until I had a family of my own; and apart from my own little family I'm still the "lonely outsider".
Another thing is that I like ritual -sometimes. And I like marking special times of the year -Christmas!
I truly like to embrace diversity! and have learned that one can find Truth in all different sorts of worship. -God is everywhere!

Thank you for the link, Anthony. There was also an article in "the Friend" some time ago featuring Terry Waite.
_________________
Light & Love
Hope
xx

Dan · Joined: 03 Dec 2003 Posts: 273 Location: midwest

If thee likes ritual the anglican church is full of it.

I have a friend who is an Episcopal priest. He was raised Roman Catholic, made the mistake of marrying and then wanting to become a priest. He decided he didn't want to wait for his wife to die so he became an Anglican.

Some of us struggle with ritual, but even in our meetings, things become ritualistic. My personal struggle is with the "Catholic" holidays that so many want to cling too such as Easter and Christmas.

Would be interested in what others do with them.

Thy Friend,
Dan

trueblood · Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 13

Dan · Joined: 03 Dec 2003 Posts: 273 Location: midwest

Friend Trueblood,

Thee but proves my point. I for one am *not* complaining about the secularization of Christmas for I have seen it as pagan at its worst and Catholic at its best.

The same can be said for Ishtar or Easter. The Roman church brought much paganism in and cloaked it by calling it something else.

Most Protestants have held onto their pagan/catholic celebrations. Originally our forefathers didn't celebrate them for that very reason.

It turns my crank when I see the bumper sticker that says: "Put Christ back in Christmas." I wonder how it is that you put Him "back" if He wasn't in it in the first place.

Thy Friend,
Dan

trueblood · Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Posts: 13

Sorry Dan, did not mean to imply that you yourself complained about the secularization. I was thinking more along the lines of numerous sermons I have heard over the years.

I also agree with you about literalist type bumper stickers.

Hope · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 137 Location: England

kevin roberts · Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:21 pm Post subject:

Shay · Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 885

According to my mom, I'm still a Lutheran. She even baptized my daughter once, I think.

According to my dad's mom, I should be Catholic. She tried her best to get me to go to Mass and marry a nice Catholic boy*.

(According to Irish folksongs, I am the orange and the green.)

I still don't eat pork, so a lot of people think I'm Jewish. Or weirdly, vegetarian?

But I haven't claimed any of those things for myself. Occasionally I've gone with Deist or Noahide when I had to specify what I actually believe, but being a Friend suits me best.

Still and all- I felt I should chime in, because sometimes it's not what you see yourself as that makes the most difference to the people around you... I've tried for years to get my family to acknowledge what I've felt a part of for... wow, twelve years now? And they still pass that over in favor of what they would like to believe.

I'm a smidge surprised there's Quiccans, Quanglicans, and so on... what exactly is it that Friends doesn't meet with, where one would need a portmanteau word?

*My dad sees religion like he does the dentist- you go when you can't avoid it.

kevin roberts · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:31 am Post subject:

Quistianity, Shay.

"Friends" no longer means what it did to the people who founded the movement. Robert Barclay, for instance, distinguishes Friends from 'atheists and antinomians" in his Anarchy of the Ranters. Barclay was what we might here call a Quistian.