>>14774992
>What do you think of progressive Quakers?
Trying to be as charitable as possible: Progressive Quakers can be very well meaning people, and are vaguely for a lot of the same things actual Quakers (pacifism as example), but they are very spiritually dead and lifeless. If you look at the life and actions of Quakers in the past, who were very concerned about accomplishing good deeds in the world, you would quickly come to the realization that they were doing it out spiritual reasons primarily. To Quakers, living the Gospel and being doers of the word (James 1:22) are fundamental to a Christians walk on this earth. They weren't optional.

Trying to access progressive Quakerism as a whole is kind of difficult because there's not really anything of substance there. Every single progressive Quaker meeting is going to differ wildly in what is considered acceptable beliefs, what is considered okay to share in worship, etc. There are progressive meetings that are largely Christian and more or less resemble a lot Quakers in the past. There are other Quakers, however, where the entire meeting is nothing but atheists who vaguely like the idea of a community focused around progressive politics. Once a Quaker meeting has progressed to the point of letting materialists (people who accept NO FORM of spirituality) then I think it has no right to even remotely consider itself a member of the "religious society of Friends."

I think my biggest issue with liberal Quakers is that the "big tent" approach of spirituality usually just leads to a very watered down religious life where having any sort of concrete beliefs is looked at with suspicion. If I were to take the universalist idea of "every religion leads to God", then progressive Quakerism would still be a poor religion. Progressive Quakers tend to have a very kiddie pool level understanding of any religion.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/his/

Thread:

Redpill me on the Religious Society of Friends aka Quakers.