I support young Quakers reading Barclay, and the Bible, and Fox–but not with the implication that “this is what we believe”–that would simply be untrue. What distinguishes Quakerism from so much other religion is its openness to new light–that was also true of its founders–and we don’t encourage that in our youth by telling them what or who they’re supposed to believe. They need to be able to read the foundational works with their critical faculties fully engaged, willing to say “this bit here works for me, but the other there strikes me as nonsense.”

I have another thought about programs for Quaker youth, especially as they get older. I’m not sure our primary job should be teaching them, exactly. I would rather we use more energy toward binding them to one another and to the broader Quaker community–not through shared theology but through human friendship,. We can hardly be capital-F Friends if we’re not even small-f friends. If they come out of a high school program thinking and feeling “these are my people” we will have accomplished far more than any creed. The best teachers I have seen focus on this more than the history or the beliefs, though they also spend time on those.

A short summary [drawn from his book The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001)] can be found at:

http://www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701.htm

Here’s the conclusion:

“As sinners, in one way or another, we are all part of those sinful forces that killed Jesus. Jesus died making the reign of God present for us while we were still sinners. To acknowledge our human sinfulness is to become aware of our participation in the forces of evil that killed Jesus, including their present manifestations in such powers as militarism, nationalism, racism, sexism, heterosexism and poverty that still bind and oppress….

Narrative Christus Victor understands Jesus as the one whose person and mission make the reign of God present in our history. It pictures Jesus as a model of liberation. Those who accept the invitation of God join the movement that witnesses to the nature of the reign of God in contrast to the forces of evil that bind. “

Chuckfager replies: Hi Dan, I take your point. Evangelicals get big cred for actually taking the teaching task seriously. For me this goes beyond Ev. quakes. When I watched the documentary “Jesus Camp,” I was dipped into a whirling stream of mixed feelings: actual revulsion at much of what the film showed being done to young children in the name of God — along with frank admiration at the time, effort and money being put into the project by the adults dedicated to it. I also couldn’t deny the fact that or many kids the camp’s impact was long-term; it worked. Compared to the de facto indifference disguised as “universalist tolerance” in many Liberal Quaker circles as far a serious RE is concerned, there was little doubt which force was going to carry more weight in the world.
BTW, find out about “Jesus Camp” here ; and you can watch it on YouTube, beginning here . I believe it’s required viewing for Quaker parents.

Thanks for this. It’s really great.

As usual, I had too much to say about this to fit in the box…so I put it up on my own blog

onequakertake.blogspot.com

I don’t think that “not having a creed” is a creed; there is no contradiction in saying “I know we don’t have a creed and that’s how I like it.”

I will also say, here, that I think one should go back before Barclay to think about such questions as where the Society might go in the future. The Apology, for all its substantial benefit and value, is a work I believe begins the Quaker crawl back from the “limb” onto which Fox and some of the other founders had ventured back to the safety of protestantism. It was written to seek the acceptance of the powers that be, to smooth over some of the things that got Quakers in so much trouble.

And when we are reading the Bible we might consider that Quakers did not accept the protestant notion that it was “the word of God” in the modern sense that phrase is used. For all its use and all its value, it was not the highest religious authority, at least originally, in the faith and practice of Friends.

Thanks, again, Chuck, for stirring this pot.

Chuckfager replies: Brother Timothy, great to have you dropping in. Dig your blog — folks go see it! i think you’re quite right about the context of Barclay’s Apology, though it still has a lot of value. we need to say more about that in days to come.

For a slightly older, mostly 20-something workshop at Powell House a year later I had us read through the “Infant Ministers” chapter in Samuel Bownas’ “Description of the Qualifications…” It was so powerful that the workshop was more or less hijacked by the Holy Spirit when we got to the chapter’s end and we had one of the most unambiguous “Jesus is in the house” half-hours I’ve never experienced as we went into spontaneous prayers.

Barclay’s catechism was used by First Day Schools for generations. If it doesn’t answer “What do Quakers believe?” it sure comes close to “What do Quakers traditionally believe?” That’s a pretty good starting point for just about anyone answering to the name “Friend.”

Not every old text is accessible but I think we do the teens and newcomers a disservice when we assume they can’t handle them. If we really think the faith and technique of Friends is worth passing on then we’ve got to share it as teachers.

From my perspective, your best thoughts on this topic (that I’ve read) are found in the book Without Apology. Very helpful for me and I suspect for others. As you write the new pamphlet for teens, make sure you keep that unapologetic tone! That spirit is the best way to resist someone trying to get you saved at a megachurch.

Chuck Replies: I’ll do my best, Mike. I’ll need to come up with some new, teenage-friendly jokes, tho. That won’t be easy for this old fart . . . .