Category Archives: Quaker Theology

Why Expel A Gay-Friendly Oregon Meeting? Here Are 8 Answers.

Part of Rosedale’s letter was what was now becoming boilerplate: “While no process involving human effort can ever be perfect (especially when the results create pain for some) we affirm the Board of Elders’ process and their conclusion to uphold current Faith and Practice resulting in West Hills Friends Church removal from fellowship.” They get an extra point for saying “removal” instead of “release.”

Rosedale-EFC-LogoMore revealing was a set of four questions, with answers, attached to their letter, summarizing their view of the authority relationships involved:

Questions concerning West Hill’s actions:

1. Are all members and local churches required to accept the Faith and Practice as prescriptive? Yes.

2. Does the F&P allow a local church to create or form doctrine?
No. The only body given authority to change doctrine is the Faith and Practice committee of the yearly meeting.

3. Does the F&P give Elders authority to oversee doctrinal disputes and to discontinue churches? Yes.

4. Does the F&P require the Elders to follow a particular procedure in declaring the issue is shattering to the Yearly Meeting, or in discontinuing a church, other than what is mentioned in [two sections of F&P]? No.

Note here that questions are only asked about West Hills actions; the Elders aren’t subject to interrogation. Further, the relationship described here is strictly top-down.

And from a liberal Friend’s perspective, it is remarkable how completely absent from this formulation is any notion of continuing revelation coming from anywhere except the top. However, this arrangement, and the theology underlying it, is consistent with the evangelical view of the church.

Say Hello to the “Atlantic Friends Mission”– Baptism, Anyone?

Say Hello to the “Atlantic Friends Mission”– Baptism, Anyone? Late last week, the other shoe dropped in the exodus from North Carolina Yearly Meeting-FUM. Three of the meetings that most loudly demanded a purge of all NCYM meetings they did not approve of, and which then left NCYM when that purge did not happen, have … Continue reading Say Hello to the “Atlantic Friends Mission”– Baptism, Anyone? →

A Hidden Piece of (Quaker) Women’s History: Leadership in The Ku Klux Klan

Historian Leonard Moore’s analysis of the 1920s KKK membership list for Wayne County, Indiana — home of the city of Richmond, numerous Quakers, and the Quaker Earlham College — offers a startling (to modern Friends) disclosure:

The religious affiliations . . . also closely approximated the city’s Protestant spectrum . . . . The large, traditionally evangelical denominations (Methodist, Baptist, Disciples of Christ, and Presbyterian) were strongly represented, but so too were the equally consequential German (Lutheran and United Brethren) and Quaker churches.

That is, Indiana Quakers were just as likely to join the 1920s Indiana Klan as any other churches; and many did.

And Daisy Douglass Barr was their star. She served as pastor in at least two prominent Friends churches, and preached in many more, over many years.
Daisy Douglass Barr in a 1922 newsclip (her maiden name was spelled Douglass, not Douglas, as here.)
She also used her notoriety and her Klan office to make money. The profit came mainly from selling Klan women’s robes and other paraphernalia. When the Indiana Klan could boast several hundred thousand members, and draw tens of thousands to its (white) family-friendly mass rallies, the paraphernalia business was good; nay, it was a goldmine.

LGBTs & Western Evangelical Quakers: A Reflection

CEF: I was really struck by what has been called the faculty gag rule at George Fox University. It also sounds as if there’s double-talk (or for the Orwellian-minded, Doublespeak) about it — administration officials say there is NOT a gag rule, but faculty members say there is — or at least they say that in private, not for attribution (as people would do if there really was a gag rule intact, regardless of what was “said” about it). What’s your sense? And is this kind of censorship spreading on college campuses generally, or is GFU something “special”?

ANGELL: The president of GFU, Robin Baker, who I quote in the article, says there is no “gag rule.” He says academic freedom is guaranteed for GFU professors. On some issues that are controversial in some evangelical Christian circles, e.g., climate change, it is clear to me that GFU employees are free to speak their minds. See, for example, this interesting work by George Fox Evangelical Seminary [GFES} professors: Daniel Brunner, Jennifer L. Butler, and A. J. Swoboda, Introducing Evangelical Ecotheology, intro. by Bill McKibben (Baker Publishing Group, 2014).

It is also clear to me, however, that academic freedom at GFU does not extend to discussion of matters concerning human sexuality. And that it cannot, as long as the current lifestyle standards of the University are in place (and, as I state in my article, there are no plans to change or even to reconsider them at this point).

This is an increasing problem for GFU professors and staff; in this most unchurched of states (Oregon) where same-sex marriage is legal and increasingly mainstream, GFES and GFU professors are in danger of finding their relevance circumscribed because of an inability to candidly express their views on matters of human sexuality. This specific issue is most severe at the so-called Christian colleges, although faculty at other seminaries and universities could do much more to engage matters of human sexuality in a constructive manner, especially in print.