![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tsukikageHuh... According to the FUM website, they mention chastity as one of the Quaker testimonies.
Anyways, I have a body to my paper. I guess I'll print it out and scribble all over it for a half hour or so and then go to bed for maybe three hours. Make an intro and conclusion (including coming up with an audience and thesis) tomorrow.
Blech.
For your reading displeasure (note that this hasn't been looked over at all:
I have been attending Twin Cities Friends Meeting with my family since I was five years old. In other words, I consider myself to be a Quaker. You might imagine, then, that I know what a Quaker is. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Quaker as “A member of the Religious Society of Friends, founded by George Fox in 1648-50, distinguished by its stress on the ‘Inner Light’ and rejection of sacraments, ordained ministry and set forms of worship; noted also for pacifist principles and simplicity of life, formerly in particular for plainness of dress and speech.” (I will note here that Quakers more officially call themselves “Friends”.) It just so happens that this definition describes the form of Quakerism that I practice well.
However, due to a number of divisions that have occurred in the history of the Religious Society of Friends (mainly during the 19th century), there are many Quakers to whom this definition would not apply. At present, the three main branches of Quakerism are Friends General Conference (FGC, which I have been brought up in), Friends United Meeting (FUM), and Evangelical Friends International (EFI). According to their website, members of Evangelical Friends International both have ordained ministry and fully programmed worship (set worship with hymns, scripture readings, a sermon, and no long periods of silence). By not specifically stating otherwise, their website also leads me to believe that Evangelical Friends International makes use of sacraments as part of their faith.
Perhaps, then, we could define Quakerism by their stress on the “Inner Light” (that of God within, allowing a personal connection with God) and their beliefs in pacifism, simplicity, and other “Quaker testimonies” (a flexible collection of Quaker values), but there are many other faiths that believe in a personal connection with God and value simplicity and pacifism. Can we even surely state that all Quakers are pacifists? Although Quakerism has deeply Christian roots, the most liberal branch of the Religious Society of Friends, Friends General Conference, has now admitted a number Buddhists, Wiccans, and even Atheists as members. So if we cannot define Quakerism by what it is, nor by what it is not, how do we know what Quakerism is?
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein first proposed the idea of family resemblance in his book Philosophische Untersuchungen (Philosophical Investigations), presenting the difficulty of defining even a word as simple as “game”. One cannot say that all games have winners or loosers, that all games have rules, or even that all games are fun. We cannot even say that “a game is something that meets at least two of the three requirements of having winners or losers, rules, and being fun”. But the fact that we cannot define a game does not mean that we don’t know what it is.
So if I am to give a definition of Quaker, I will have to use the simple definition given by The American Heritage® Dictionary: “A member of the (Religious) Society of Friends.”. As dictionary editors must write their definitions based on the truth of how a word is used by the people to whom language belongs. If two people profess themselves to be Quakers, even if one believes that the other is not a “true” Quaker, who are we to define the word by the opinion of one and not the other. Moreover, we must be able to recognize what one means when they call themselves “Quaker”, even if not everyone would agree. Therefore we must accept that not all things can be firmly defined.
Anyways, I have a body to my paper. I guess I'll print it out and scribble all over it for a half hour or so and then go to bed for maybe three hours. Make an intro and conclusion (including coming up with an audience and thesis) tomorrow.
Blech.
For your reading displeasure (note that this hasn't been looked over at all:
I have been attending Twin Cities Friends Meeting with my family since I was five years old. In other words, I consider myself to be a Quaker. You might imagine, then, that I know what a Quaker is. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Quaker as “A member of the Religious Society of Friends, founded by George Fox in 1648-50, distinguished by its stress on the ‘Inner Light’ and rejection of sacraments, ordained ministry and set forms of worship; noted also for pacifist principles and simplicity of life, formerly in particular for plainness of dress and speech.” (I will note here that Quakers more officially call themselves “Friends”.) It just so happens that this definition describes the form of Quakerism that I practice well.
However, due to a number of divisions that have occurred in the history of the Religious Society of Friends (mainly during the 19th century), there are many Quakers to whom this definition would not apply. At present, the three main branches of Quakerism are Friends General Conference (FGC, which I have been brought up in), Friends United Meeting (FUM), and Evangelical Friends International (EFI). According to their website, members of Evangelical Friends International both have ordained ministry and fully programmed worship (set worship with hymns, scripture readings, a sermon, and no long periods of silence). By not specifically stating otherwise, their website also leads me to believe that Evangelical Friends International makes use of sacraments as part of their faith.
Perhaps, then, we could define Quakerism by their stress on the “Inner Light” (that of God within, allowing a personal connection with God) and their beliefs in pacifism, simplicity, and other “Quaker testimonies” (a flexible collection of Quaker values), but there are many other faiths that believe in a personal connection with God and value simplicity and pacifism. Can we even surely state that all Quakers are pacifists? Although Quakerism has deeply Christian roots, the most liberal branch of the Religious Society of Friends, Friends General Conference, has now admitted a number Buddhists, Wiccans, and even Atheists as members. So if we cannot define Quakerism by what it is, nor by what it is not, how do we know what Quakerism is?
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein first proposed the idea of family resemblance in his book Philosophische Untersuchungen (Philosophical Investigations), presenting the difficulty of defining even a word as simple as “game”. One cannot say that all games have winners or loosers, that all games have rules, or even that all games are fun. We cannot even say that “a game is something that meets at least two of the three requirements of having winners or losers, rules, and being fun”. But the fact that we cannot define a game does not mean that we don’t know what it is.
So if I am to give a definition of Quaker, I will have to use the simple definition given by The American Heritage® Dictionary: “A member of the (Religious) Society of Friends.”. As dictionary editors must write their definitions based on the truth of how a word is used by the people to whom language belongs. If two people profess themselves to be Quakers, even if one believes that the other is not a “true” Quaker, who are we to define the word by the opinion of one and not the other. Moreover, we must be able to recognize what one means when they call themselves “Quaker”, even if not everyone would agree. Therefore we must accept that not all things can be firmly defined.
