Re: When is a Quaker a Quaker?




John wrote:
>
>Engineer wrote:
>
>>Marshall Massey wrote:
>>
>>>Engineer wrote,
>>>
>>>>Glenside Friends Meeting (as far as I can tell it consists
>>>>of Larry and Licia Kuenning and their family, publishers
>>>>of the Quaker Heritage Press) is an independent body, not
>>>>part of any yearly meeting. I haven't seen much call for
>>>>them to stop calling themselves Quakers.
>>>
>>>There are a number of such independent meetings around the U.S. Some,
>>>like Glenside, and like a couple of independent meetings I am
>>>personally acquainted with in Kansas, are generally accepted as
>>>representing legitimate Quakerism, and their members in good standing
>>>are accepted on equal terms with members of Friends meetings
>>>elsewhere. Others, like the Quaker Taoist Church in Fort Collins,
>>>Colorado, are *not* so accepted. Friends do not accept independent
>>>meetings and their members blindly.
>>
>>It only takes one example of a Quaker who is not part of the RSOF
>>to refute the claim that "Quaker" always refers to "Member of the
>>Religious Society of Friends." Nobody is claiming that all claims
>>by non-RSOF-members to be Quakers are valid, only that some such
>>claims are valid.
>>
>>>>(BTW, I will be happy to call my family an independent
>>>>meeting if that would put an end to the constant attempts
>>>>to tell me what I am and what I am not...)
>>>
>>>You could instead call the American Society of Chemical Engineers an
>>>independent meeting. But Friends would take note of the fact that you
>>>did it on your own say-so, and they would consider the presence or
>>>lack of justification for your claim, before deciding whether to
>>>accept the claim as legitimate. Acceptance of your claim would not be
>>>automatic.
>>
>>Nor would rejection be automatic. Acceptance/rejection would be based
>>upon something other than a claim that only RSOF members are Quakers.
>>Larry and Licia Kuenning are not RSOF members but are generally (but
>>not universally) accepted as Quakers.
>
>Are you positing an argument that "Quakers", are those that
>are accepted as being "Quakers"? Presumably such 'acceptance'
>would have to come from others whose status as "Quakers" is
>beyond dispute, or alternatively those who are members of
>the Religious Society of Friends. Is this be your argument?

At the moment I am restricting myself to attempting to correct one
particular error; the mistaken view that only members of the RSOF
are Quakers. Once we have established what the word "Quaker" does
*not* mean, then we can move on to the far more interesting question
of what the word *does* mean.

Alas, unless your views have changed since January, I count you
among those who are in error:

|
|Message-ID: <41fe2eef$0$16573$cc9e4d1f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|From: John <joh$n@deism$$.org>
|Subject: Re: "You aren't a Real Quaker," Spake The Accuser
|Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
|Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:14:13 +0000
|NNTP-Posting-Host: 81-178-194-65.dsl.pipex.com
|
|Your arguments on 'who is a Quaker', seem to avoid the question of
|commitment. I hold a number of so-called post nomials, (the letters
|behind ones name), whilst I have earned all of them, only some can be
|maintained without some form of commitment. For example my wife and I
|are both members of a society, in whose journal papers I have written,
|are occasionally published, however to maintain our MSXX post nomials
|we have to pay our annual membership fees, and agree to abide by the
|rules of the Society.
|
|I am not a member of part of the structure of the Religious Society of
|Friends, and therefore do not expect, or wish, to be regarded by either
|its members, or the public in general as a 'Quaker'. If you wish to be
|regarded as a 'Quaker', then I would suggest that the solution is easy
|enough, you will have to make a commitment to one meeting and apply for
|membership. From your previous arguments it is at this point that you
|seem to experience some difficulty, in committing to one meeting. Until
|such time as you can, then you cannot expect others to regard you as
|anything other than an occasional attender at one or other 'Quaker'
|Meeting or Church.
|
|--
|John
|

I would be most interested in finding out whether you think that
Glenside Friends Meeting and the Kansas independent meetings
Marshall mentions are as he puts it, "generally accepted as
representing legitimate Quakerism" despite not being members of
the Religious Society of Friends, and if so, how you reconcile
that view with the views expressed in the post quoted above.




.