It’s a pretty common question online, in various question-asking-and-answering communities, and indeed offline when talking to people about our faith: are Quakers Christian? Seems like a simple question, doesn’t it? Well, the answer is, as ever, not anywhere near as simple.
If you want my short answer, it would be “some are”, but then others would say “yes”, despite the obvious presence of Quakers who do not identify as Christian, or “no”, despite the obvious presence of those who do.
If you want the quickest answer that is minimally misleading, I’ll have a go at that. Quakers grew out of Christianity, in a time and place where Christianity was the assumed norm, an almost, and to all practical purposes, universal faith – but where there were many varieties of it, most varieties suffering some degree of persecution. Christians who hold that a credal statement is a necessary characteristic of being a Christian – be it a specific formulation such as the Nicene Creed or a more general belief in, for example, the Trinity – would reject Quaker institutions as Christian, from early in our history, due to both our rejection of creeds and our acceptance of diverse forms of Christian belief from the very beginning. However, all early Quakers would call themselves Christians, indeed they generally felt they were ‘restoring’ true Christianity.
Today, after much evolution and diversification within the Religious Society of Friends, some parts of the Society are explicitly Christian and do not tolerate non-Christian belief, though the definition of such essential Christianity varies. Other parts are theologically diverse, certainly including self-identifying Christian Quakers who would have no problem with the Nicene Creed, or at least the Apostles’ Creed. They sit alongside self-identifying Christian Quakers whose beliefs would be rejected by any other Christian groups, who sit alongside those whose theology derives from some other faith, such as the non-trivial number of Jewish Quakers (which can describe those whose Judaism is secular and those who follow it as a religion), Muslim Quakers, Pagan Quakers and even Hindu Quakers (who, again, may use Hindu as a term of identity rather than an indication of religious belief). There are those who have inchoate theology, preferring (or finding themselves compelled) to refuse to answer what many would consider important questions about the nature of God, or Christ, or any other matter of specifics in Christian tradition; some of these call themselves Christian, some do not. There are those who, to the extent their personal theology gets specific, explicitly reject the idea of what can be termed a “theistic God”, a broad term but one that covers the God depicted in the Bible – one willing and able to directly interfere in the workings of the world we know. Such are often termed, by themselves or others, nontheist Quakers (avoiding the implications of the terms atheist which ought, if one paid attention only to etymology, to mean the same thing).
Some elements of practice that most Christians would see as essential are absent from almost all Quaker communities – the sacraments of the Lord’s Supper (also known as the Eucharist or Holy Communion) and baptism, most noticeably. Yet Quakers see all of life as sacramental, and the tradition of the Lord’s Supper is seen as maintained any time we share a meal. Baptism with water is not done, but Christian Quakers (and some who are not Christian) believe in the Baptism of the Spirit, an experience that need not be marked outwardly and often entirely imperceptible except to the person who experiences it.
That’s how we get to the short answer – some Quakers are Christian, some are not, and whether a given Quaker is a Christian depends on who you ask.
So, that’s the short answer, and the slightly longer answer, about the very beginning and where we are now. In order to explain this properly, we need to cover some history. So, settle down, and I will tell you a story…
This is a true story, one might even say history, though it is necessarily simplified. It leaves out a lot of details that are important to any serious study, and glosses over a lot of complexity. Its purpose is not to be a serious summary of all of the history, which would have to be very long indeed, but rather to give those who know little of the origin of the Religious Society of Friends, and those who know the origin, and where we are now, but not how we got from there to here, a somewhat better idea of things. All so they can understand just how complex the question “are Quakers Christian?” really is
England (indeed, the whole of Britain, though Scotland was a vastly more separate place then, especially in terms of religion) was very much a Christian country in every possible sense, at the start of the 17th century. This is not to say there were absolutely zero non-Christians in the country, but the structure of the state and the expectation of the ordinary person was one of universal Christianity. The Church of England was reasonably solidly established, in a comparatively moderate form compared to that desired by the reformists of the reigns of Henry VIII (under whom they had little luck apart from the separation from Rome) and Edward VI (under, or perhaps via whom they had rather more success). There were, of course, Catholics still in the country, though most concealed their faith, and there were more radical reformists who wished to see the church further reformed away from that of Rome (the Puritans – who wished to purify the church of remaining Roman influences) but neither was having a particularly significant public impact – and those tried for heresy who failed to recant could still be burned to death, though more died in prison during a mortal game of chicken, the authorities not really wanting to burn anyone but the ‘heretic’ being unwilling to recant.
One of the first threads, at this time, that feeds into the story of the Quakers is that of the Seekers, a non-organised religious movement generally attributed to the preaching of the Legate brothers. Partly by reason of this, they were also known as Legatine-Arians; I assume the other is that they were seen as subscribing to the ‘Arian heresy’, also known as Arianism, the belief that Jesus Christ did not exist until he was begotten by God the Father, although the aspects of Arianism known to have been espoused by the Legates do not appear to have focused on this definitional character. Rather, they espoused Arianism’s belief in the spiritual equality of people, along with anti-clericalism and various other points.
The Seeker movement was inspired by the Legates, but they were not leaders of it, or really part of it, given that the movement only really got going after one of them died in prison awaiting execution for heresy, and another was burned at the stake for the same, before the movement really got going; there was a third preaching Legate brother, but I haven’t been able to find out what happened to him. Seeker assemblies arose in many areas, but they weren’t what we might characterise as a sect, cult or denomination; it was perfectly acceptable to continue to attend either the established church, or some other religious group.
The major reason that Seekers are often considered proto-Quakers was their mode of worship; they met in silence and equality, free of ritual, and sought for direct inspiration and guidance. This is clearly very close to the silent waiting practised by early Friends, and by unprogrammed Friends to this day (and often to some extent, as a part of or supplement to their programmed worship, by programmed Friends). They also rejected creeds, and a single assembly would generally embrace a wide range of (broadly Christian) ideas.
There were a lot of so-called dissenting groups (those who dissented with the ideas of the established church) in England in the 17th century. Part of this was the general European foment of religious ideas across Europe that surrounded the Protestant Reformation starting in the 16th century, but it was particularly catalysed in the mid-17th century in England by the circumstances of the English Civil Wars and the policies of the New Model Army and the puritan-led Commonwealth government of the Interregnum. Reading became a much more widespread skill, and reading of the Bible was particularly encouraged – and when many people read the Bible independently, without being told what each part means, they tend to come up with a wide range of interpretations.
Anabaptist ideas came from mainland Europe, and while those caught espousing them were persecuted (and indeed prosecuted, and sometimes executed), they persisted and a community survived. The secretive ‘Family of Love’ (Familia Caritatis), also persecuted as heretics, were present, and reportedly shared some Anabaptist ideas (most obviously adult baptism, or believer’s baptism), but less is known about them as they were so secretive and did not publicly seek converts, preferring to remain outwardly part of the established church community while silently being sure that they were right, and that was enough for them.
Both groups, like the Seekers, predate Quakers. However, both had ideas that went into the spiritual/intellectual DNA of the Religious Society of Friends, including their shared belief in conformity to the directions in the Sermon on the Mount, and thus pacifism and a rejection of oaths, among other things.
Other groups understood to have some influence on Quakers include the Levellers and Diggers (related groups, the Diggers having split from the Levellers), and the Ranters. The Levellers were primarily a political movement, but one with a religious basis, believing in “natural rights” that bear some resemblance to modern ideas of human rights, and deriving them from scripture. The name was imposed upon them but embraced by the group, though they denied its connotations; it was used for protestors decades before the group in question arose, for those who demolished hedgerows in protest at the beginnings of the process of Enclosure, land reforms that took from rural farmers. It was used of the Levellers in question partly in harking back to this use, and partly from the claim they wished to “level down” the country to the lowest for all, a claim they denied. The Levellers believed in popular sovereignty as part of natural rights, and that the Royalist side had breached these during the English Civil Wars of 1642-1651; some factions of the group held that they had been breached more generally ever since the Norman Conquest of 1066. Many didn’t go that far, but did extend it further than simply the abuses of Charles I. Some of their arguments would be somewhat familiar to anyone who has come across the pseudo-legal arguments of the modern movement of freemen-on-the-land, or their American cousins, the sovereign citizen movement.
The Diggers were an offshoot of the Levellers, some calling themselves the True Levellers, who held an idealistic view of the agrarian lifestyle, believing that it was desirable, both morally and religiously, for communities to be small, egalitarian, rural and agrarian. Several groups seized control of common land and planted crops. They protested, and attempted to undo the practice of Enclosure, returning more land to communal use. They advocated communal ownership and collective responsibility for wellbeing, including healthcare, though this being the 17th century healthcare wasn’t of terribly great benefit. In a sense, they were early communists. They had little success, but created a big stir at the time.
The Ranters were, in a sense, more extreme than any of the other groups I have mentioned, but also less organised. They were pantheistic, believing that God is literally in all things; they denied the authority of churches, and also of scripture; they denied the value of laws, or even of social and moral norms. They are reported to have espoused the belief that the purpose of life was for a person to become more God-like. Their relationship with the early Quakers is unclear and debatable; some certainly existed before the Quakers coalesced in England, but Ranters found later in the 17th century in America may have been former Quakers who rejected the process of (fairly limited) standardisation of practices and beliefs among Quakers in the Americas. Quakers were accused of being a form of Ranter, or having direct associations with them, which was often considered to be a false accusation. However, if Ranters were a significant part of the dissenting melting pot, it is likely that there is some common spiritual DNA between the two groups. I do note that some historians think that the Ranters never existed, being a false story designed to enhance traditional values by contrast to an invented extreme opposite; personally, I find the contemporary accounts sufficiently diverse in origin to consider this unlikely, but I am not an expert.
In any case, the various groups that came to be known as Quakers came to share certain beliefs and practices – anti-clericalism, perhaps better expressed as a belief in the priesthood of all believers (rather than lacking a clergy, Quakers lack a laity); a belief in direct inspiration by God, spoken of using various terms such as the Holy Spirit, the Light, and so on; the practice of worship by silent waiting, with those inspired by the Spirit speaking as they are led; an unusual degree of egalitarianism, especially in respect to the spiritual life, though not as egalitarian with respect to the sexes as some would claim; the practice of proselytisation through those travelling in the ministry, including disrupting church services or holding large outdoor meetings to convince people of the rightness of this new way. Other beliefs that came to be common among Quakers likely came later, such as being against the exploitation of other people (either as employees or as chattel slaves), a belief in benefiting from your own work rather than chance or the work of others, and a belief in moderation (or complete abstention) in relation to alcohol.
In the end, these groups coalesced around a common identity, though different phrasings of it were used, generally involving the word ‘Friend’, which is used to this day. They also coalesced around the charismatic leadership of George Fox, who had a vision one day in 1652, on climbing Pendle Hill (in Lancashire), of a “great people to be gathered”, and where he should go to gather them. With the support of the wife of a local judge in Westmorland and Lancashire (whom he went on to marry once she was widowed), Quakers became organised, with a great deal of that initial organisation going towards supporting persecuted Friends. Still, then, all Quakers would likely have called themselves Christian, and used Christian language to describe their faith experience.
Once they were no longer so badly persecuted, Quakers quietly got on with their lives, spreading in some areas. During a period known as the quietist period, following the death of George Fox and lasting much of the 18th century, Quakers were tolerated, and became influential by virtue of commercial and industrial success of various Quaker families, and by (quiet) pushes for greater social welfare. Quakers in England became ‘loud’ again in the 19th century, influenced by Evangelical Revivals, and began proselytising widely again – but in a much more mainstream Christian way. Silent Meetings for Worship, largely for those who were themselves Quakers, were supplemented by public Gospel Meetings, which bore some resemblance to a conventional church service (minus the sacramental liturgy), but were intended as vehicles of education and conversion. While there had been some quiet steps towards universalism – both in the sense of universal Christian salvation and in the sense of acceptance of validity with regard to non-Christian faiths – during the quietist period, British Quakers became vehemently Christian, and some organised pushes towards universalism were suppressed.
Meanwhile, in the Americas, rather than remaining united and going down one path, Quakers split. Several times, and in several places. Some parts then rejoined one another. The precise details are very confusing, but suffice to say that there ended up being two main camps for some time. One of these was relatively liberal in its approach to belief, maintained the rejection of creeds, and maintained silent, unprogrammed worship. The other became more definitively Christian, embraced statements or declarations of belief that differed from creeds mainly in not being referred to as creeds, and gradually introduced more pastoral, programmed elements into their worship. This division remains to this day, though the connection of unprogrammed versus pastoral worship and liberal versus restricted theology is not total. There are Meetings in North America that are explicitly Christian, while avoiding creeds, but remain unprogrammed, and there are pastoral Meetings that accept a degree of theological diversity.
Back in England, the Manchester Conference of 1895 marked a turning point following around a century of increasing evangelicalism, focus on belief rather than action, and prescriptive practices. For much of that time, there had also been voices questioning this, a desire to return to less prescriptive approaches, calling for the acceptance of different views on matters of religion, but those voices either recanted, became silent in public, or were cast out of the Yearly Meeting. In Manchester, late in 1895, that changed. Since then there has been a largely increasing acceptance of diverse religious views, and a focus on how we live our lives, and on unprogrammed worship, rather than on belief; to use one popular phrase, we became focussed on orthopraxy over orthodoxy, which is a fancy way of saying focussing on “doing right” rather than “thinking (or believing) right”. Periodically this becomes a matter of some controversy, with some more extreme non-Christian Quakers saying the future of Quakers should be one without superstition (by which they generally mean theistic belief, among other things), or more extreme Christian Quakers denouncing nontheist Quakers, or sometimes all non-Christian Quakers, and calling for our ejection from the Religious Society of Friends.
But what makes a Christian? I have mentioned creeds, but another fairly popular definition is “one who follows the teachings of Jesus”. The vast majority of nontheist Quakers, including myself, will agree that there is much in the teachings of Jesus, as recounted in the Gospels, that is worth paying attention to; they will also agree that there is some stuff in there that is hard to square with their own experience of life and of the leadings of the Spirit. Most Christian Quakers in liberal Meetings will say the same. Both groups will also generally say the same is true, to a variable extent, of the sacred or traditional texts of other religions, too. When it comes down to what really matters – how we can worship together, how we live, how we let our lives speak – it is hard to tell the difference between a self-identified Christian Quaker, and a self-identified non-Christian Quaker.
So, are Quakers Christians? Yes, and no. Some are, all are, none are. All of these answers make sense depending on how you look at the question – and how much you care about personal self-identification versus objective taxonomies. To really understand, you need to look further at what it means to be Christian, what it means to be a Quaker, and how both of those questions have many answers. You need to understand the history of the Christian church in England and its colonies, and the history of the many branches of the Religious Society of Friends. I hope I have given enough of a taste of that to help you understand the complexities involved; you will have to do more work on your own, read more, probably discuss with others in order to develop a deeper understanding of the relationship between Quakers and Christianity.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon or ‘buying me a coffee’ on Ko-Fi. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
