From: wagner@cs.unc.edu (Michael Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Some questions about Quakerism
Date: 12 Jan 1993 13:52:46 -0500
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
NNTP-Posting-Host: paganini.cs.unc.edu

In article <1993Jan11.192547.8033@ryn.mro4.dec.com> bloom@tarkin.enet.dec.com (ELBERT Bloom) writes:
>   1) Do you believe the Bible to be the invariant "Word of God"? Are
>      there any exceptions to the rule?

	Probably some Quakers do, most would *not* agree with that
	formulation of the importance of the Bible.  I think that
	many would agree with the statement that the Inward Christ
	that caused the Bible to be written is alive today, and
	as available to us today as it was in Biblical times.
>
>   2) Do different Quakers have differing opinions on the meanings
>      of the Bible?

	Different Quakers have different beliefs on almost all 
	subjects, including the "meanings of the Bible."  You
	will find many threads in this newsgroup where varying
	views are expressed.
>
>      I.E. Trinity Doctrine vs Non-Trinity Doctrine
>           Who goes to Heaven? Is there a Hell? Who goes there?
>           Is there any concept such as eternal life here on earth?
>           Will non-Christians who live a proper life also reap a
>              Heavenly reward?

	I think that you will find not a lot of interest in these
	issues amongst most Quakers today.  An interesting book
	for you might be "Apocalypse of the Word", where Douglas
	Gwyn presents Fox's interpretation of the Book of Revelations.
>
>   3) Is it even important what one's view of the Bible is so long as
>      he/she obeys the one commandment; that is to Love God and your
>      neighbor with all your heart, soul ...... etc.

	Different Quakers will answer this one in very different
	manners.

>   4) What is the Quaker view on smoking? on drinking?

	Quakers have traditionally had a testimony against the
	use of alcohol.   I've never heard much about smoking.

>
>   5) Are all Quakers pacifists?

	Any question which includes "all Quakers" is pretty much
	bound to be answered negatively.  There is a traditional
	testimony against war, many Quakers have been pacifists.

>   6) Can one be a Quaker, but not necessarily conform to all the tenets
>      of the faith?

	Since there isn't much in the way of "tenets of the faith"
	in Quakerism, I'm not sure that this question is relevant.
	One of the hard things about exploring Quakerism is that
	Quakers by and large don't have a lot of theology. There
	are some traditional testimonies (peace, simplicity, avoidance
	of alcohol, etc), but these aren't exactly "tenets of faith".
	You can find very fundamental Christians in Quaker meetings,
	as well as atheists, etc.  In many ways Fox and the early
	Quakers were as much about trying to change the fundamental
	notion of what a (Christian) religion is as they were about
	trying to present some new variant on theology or tenets.

	Douglas Gwyn argues, in "Apocalypse of the Word", that
	the early Quakers were trying to emulate the very early
	church-- during the time of the disciples, etc.

	You might not even find an agreement on what it means to
	"be a Quaker".  "A member of a monthly meeting of the Religious 
	Society of Friends" would probably be my definition-- many
	would want to include "attenders"  people who attend Meeting
	for Worship (the weekly service), but who don't join the
	Monthly Meeting (the organization or administrative unit).
	Individual Monthly Meetings may and do have litmus tests
	from time to time, but many do not.  When I became a member
	of the Chapel Hill Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society
	of Friends, they were mostly concerned about my understanding
	what it meant to join a Monthly Meeting than in any 
	doctrinal tests.


I realize that this is probably not a satisfying answer to you.
Often when people ask questions like "Do you believe the Bible 
to be the invariant "Word of God"?" of Quakers, they are trying
to categorize religions based on doctrinal test.  I suspect that
people who ask these sorts of questions feel that Quakers are
being evasive when the honest answer is "Some do, some don't."
I suspect sometimes people would be happier to hear us say,
"We sure do/don't.  We throw out anyone who doesn't/does!"

Keep close the the Light,

Mike Wagner
wagner@cs.unc.edu 
-- 
.......................................................
michael paul wagner
wagner@hatteras.cs.unc.edu		ahlan wa sahlan
.......................................................