They held to a lot of the same doctrines, about meetings, tithings, etc. They met in houses. It was basically a house church movement. Christ as the center of the meetings was a big thing.

Quakers were started through the preaching of George Fox, a man who rejected the ceremonious religion of his time, and went about England, and the colonies (America and the Caribbean) preaching, getting beaten up, and put in prison.

They had some theological and practical distinctives, like silent meetings, and just the way they loosely exegeted some parts. they didn't believe in water baptism or the Lord's supper as things to be practices. Fox believed the Lord's supper was whenever people ate together. If they made it a point to eat together, maybe they weren't that different from house church folk.

From some things I've read, they thought of themselves as the true Christians, and had a similar view about "Babylon" as some house church folk do. They had about the same view of tithing, but some of their exegesis was just really allegorical, for those who are interested in that sort of thing.

Their view of the 'inner light' was a little bit different perspective. They did emphasize personal relationship with God and look to I Corinthians 14 for their church meeting style.

Now you have Quakers who are fairly traditional, some who aren't even Christian, and some who, after the Great Awakening, just took on evangelical liturgy and have meetings kind of like Baptists.

Some evangelical Quakers have open meetings to.

Here in Indonesia, the Quakers have typical evangelical liturgy.

Tonight, I was on the web. I was looking up early Quaker writings. I found some phone numbers of Quakers in Indonesia. I had been wanting to find that. I tried to call one here in town, but it was busy. I called the other, and they referred me to another number.

I got on the phone with a 'pendeta' I suppose. That means 'pastor' basically, although there is another word that is actually used in the Indonesian New Testament- gembala (which is pretty clearly 'shepherd.'.)

I told them the particular reasons I was interested in the Quakers, visiting their meetings, finding a church that was reasonable about issuing baptism certificates (a necessity to marry here.)

As I spoke with the man about my interest in the house church model for churches in the village, Quaker history, etc. he shared with me that he was in charge of education for several congregations. They are interested in doing some training. Some of the probably formerly animistic believers live in villages, and they work hard, and don't have time to go to meetings. He is interested in teaching a house church model ministry. Their churches believe in every member ministering.

A few other doors seem to be opening here for me. I am just amazed at how God, in His sovereignty, lets things work out like this. This type of ministry really seems to fit with what the Lord is doing in my life. I plan to meet the guy later. Prayers are appreciated.

>I was reading about Quakers and George Fox, and thinking about how their
>
beginnings were so similar to house churches.
>

>
They held to a lot of the same doctrines, about meetings, tithings, etc.
>
They met in houses. It was basically a house church movement. Christ as
>
the center of the meetings was a big thing.

May God bless you, brother, as you labor in that nation consisting of hundreds of islands. Here's a special verse for you, Link. Ps. 97:1 The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof. AND Isa. 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

Great blessings are often forfeited because groups are written off by other groups because they hold a few different beliefs. This, I think, is one of the most difficult lessons for Christians (for me) to learn.

Quakers have a long and rich history that can be studied with encouragement and profit. The charge, by some, that they were so "heavenly minded that they were no earthly good" is completely unfounded. Take William Penn as an example - his apparel was dapper to the max and he had an oatmeal recipe for everyday of the month. Seriously, it was none other than Thomas Jefferson who declared of him that he had the greatest understanding in the entire colonies of civil law. Wow!

I don't consider the following to be an accurate analysis, but pass it along for it's historical worth from those who opposed the Quakers. It's from Neal's History of the Puritans, published in the 17th century.

"By this time there began to appear some other visionaries, of the same make and complexion with George Fox, who spoke in places of public resort; being moved, as they said, by the Holy Ghost; and even some women, contrary to the modesty of their sex, went about streets, and entered into churches, crying down the teaching of men, and exhorting people to attend to the light within themselves.

It was in the year 1650 that these wandering lights first received the denomination of Quakers, upon this ground, that their speaking to the people was usually attended with convulsive agitations, and shakings of the body. All their speakers had these tremblings, which they gloried in, asserting it to be the character of a good man to tremble before God. When George Fox appeared before Gervas Bennet, esq. one of the justices of Derby, October 30, 1650, he had one of his agitations or fits of trembling, upon him, and with a loud voice and vehement emotion of body, bid the justice and those about him tremble at the word of the Lord ; whereupon the justice gave him and his friends the name of Quakers, which being agreeable to their common behavior, quickly became the distinguishing denomination of this people.

At length they disturbed the public worship by appearing in ridiculous habits, with emblematical or typical representations of some impending calamity; they also took the liberty of giving ministers the reproachful names of hirelings, deceivers of the people, false prophets, &c. Some of them went through divers towns and villages naked, denouncing judgments and calamities upon the nation. Some have famished and destroyed themselves by deep melancholy; and others have undertaken to raise their friends from the dead. Mr. Baxter says, many Franciscan friars and other Papists have been disguised speakers in their assemblies; but little credit is to be given to such reports t.

It cannot be expected that such an unsettled people should have a uniform system of rational principles. Their first and chief design, if they had any, was to reduce all revealed religion to allegory; and because some had laid too great stress upon rites and ceremonies, these would have neither order nor regularity, no stated seasons of worship, but all must arise from the inward impulse of their spirits. Agreeable to this rule, they declared against all sorts of clergy, or settled ministers; against people¹s assembling in steeple-houses; against fixed time of public devotion, and consequently against the observation of the sabbath.

Their own meetings were occasional, and when they met, one or another spake as they were moved from within, and sometimes they departed without any one¹s being moved, to speak at all...

But the disturbance they gave to the public religion for a course of years was so insufferable that the magistrates could not avoid punishing them as disturbers of the peace; though of late they are become a more sober and inoffensive people ; and by the wisdom of their managers, have formed themselves into a sort of body politic, and are in general very worthy members of society." END QUOTE.

Here below, I believe, is a more accurate picture of Quaker life from the tricentennial edition of Penn's biography, published by the state of PA. Try reciting this to your own kids and use lots of expression, OK?

... Hear my counsel, and lay it up in your hearts; love it more than treasure, and follow it . . . In the first place remember your Creator in the days of your youth ... eschew the appearance of evil . - . and flee, my dear children, from all youthful lusts; the vain sports, pastimes, and pleasures of the world ... Be obedient to your dear Mother; a woman whose virtue and good name is an honor to you; for she hath been exceeded by none in her time for her plainness, integrity, industry, humanity, virtue, and good understanding...

Next betake yourselves to some honest, industrious course of life, and that not for sordid covetousness, but for example, and to avoid idleness. And if you change your condition and marry, choose with the knowledge and consent of your mother, if living, or of guardians, or those that have charge of you . . . And being married, be tender, affectionate, patient and meek . . . Be sure to live within compass; borrow not, neither be beholden to any. Ruin not yourselves by kindness to others, for that exceeds the due bounds of friendship; neither will a true friend expect it

Let your industry and parsimony go no farther than for a sufficiency for life, and to make a provision for your children ... I charge you help the poor and needy... Know well your incomings . . . And your outgoings may be better regulated. Love not money, nor the world; use them only and they will serve you... Pity the distressed, and hold out a hand of help to them . . . In making friends, consider well first . . . Watch against anger, neither speak nor act in it . . . Avoid pride, avarice and luxury. Be no busy bodies . . .

As for you who are likely to be concerned in the government of Pennsylvania and my parts of East Jersey, especially the first, I do charge you, before the Lord God and His holy angels, that you be lowly, diligent, and tender; fearing God, loving the people, and hating covetousness...

Finally, my children, love one another with a true endeared love . . .

Yours, as God pleaseth, in that which no waters can quench, no time forget, nor distance wear away, but remains for ever ... W. Penn END QUOTE.

Strangely, the Quakers even denied the use of music in their meetings. But they felt they had good reason for so doing. And even though they fully depended upon the Spirit, their scholarly works are filled with scripture citations.

What have you learned from or about these home church forerunners?

These people were uncomfortable with calling the Bible the "Word of God." Christ is the Word of God, they reasoned. An individual utterance recorded in scripture could be called 'the word of the Lord' or 'the word of God,' but the focus was on Christ as the word.

These believers believed that it was appropriate to financially honor those who ministered, those who preached the gospel. But they were opposed to the practice of people being compelled to pay tithes to pay the preachers salaries.

These people did not consider church buildings to be holy. God does not live in buildings made with hands.

Decisions in the church were not made based on the positional authority of some man in bishops robes. Rather, the mind of the Spirit was sought. These brothers sought to find a consensus on issues that faced them.

These people considered themselves to be the true Christians, who had separated themselves from Babylon. There was a popular idea that the Roman Church was the harlot Babylon, and by extension, it could be applied to all the churches. Some in the house meetings considered all those who met in other churches to be not true believers. After all, they hadn't come out to join with the true Christians, meeting in Spirit and in truth. Others had a more open view, that others could be saints as well.

These house church Christians weren't too popular with the government. Through the derisive words of a judge, these people were called 'Quakers,' a name that stuck. They called themselves "Friends" based on the fact that Christ called His disciples "friends' as well.

I have been studying a little bit about the Quakers again. It is amazing how many theological points in which the HC movement and the Quakers are the same. There is a lot of good material to be found in their writings. I read something in William Penn's _Catechism_ which described viewpoints on the use of 'Word of God,' salaries, and various other things that are discussed among HC folks. It seems history is repeating itself.

I think we can also learn from the mistakes of the Quakers. The Quaker movement started through the preaching of a man named George Fox. He'd take a licking and keep on ticking. His Journal, available on the web, tells of his preaching, beatings, and imprisonment. He preached all over England, in the colonies that are now America and in the Caribbean.

Fox did not make himself up to be the pope of his movement. I am thinking his preaching might even have something to do with the individualistic ideas of Americans. Others could disagree with him. In one exchange of letters, Fox considered the Baptists, Presbyterians, independents, etc. to be persecuting the true Christians derisively called Quakers. Another Quaker felt that he had more in common with those who were Baptists, etc. who had a real experience of Christ than some who called themselves 'Quakers' but didn't' have the Spirit. We can learn a lot about not falling into exclusivism. Exclusivism did not seem to stick with the Quakers over the centuries.

Fox and the Quakers rejected outward form to the extent of not believing in water baptism. They believed the Lord's supper was whenever they ate together. I don't know that they made a special practice to eat at their meetings. in the Bible, there is still outward physical expression of our adoration to God, and in our fellowship to one another. There was an emphasis on the internal Christ. Over time, there were even Quakers who debated if the internal and external Christ were the same, and some didn't consider the external Christ to be important. Some Quakers aren't even Christians now. We can learn not to go to extremes in our philosophies, but to stick with the word of God.

There are still varieties of Quakers which appear much like the traditional ones. Some are just liberal Unitarian universalists types. Others, with the influence of the Great Awakening, accepted evangelical liturgy, and hold church services that look like typical evangelical IC meetings.

I met with some evangelical Quakers today. They have an open lay ministry philosophy of meeting, but their churches in this country often have pendetas, and sound as though they are influenced by tradition somewhat. They seemed to feel that my finding them through the internet and calling them was no coincidence. they want to open a school, and these type of schools have been on my mind a lot lately. I have a friend who may be opening one and I might help in some peripheral ways. I shared with them about NT models, gaining spiritual experience in the meetings, training through the NT meeting, and my interest in the Quaker meetings. They shared with me about God's leading through peace, and through consensus. I think about modern Quakers and how things must have changed over history. I am glad that the idea of exclusivism is gone.

In this country, in order to marry someone of the Christian religion, you must have Christian on your ID card. A Christian can't marry someone from the dominant 10-40 window religion. Its illegal. Legally, you need a baptism certificate to marry in a lot of cases. To get one you have to be baptized through a denomination that is registered with the government. When they see themselves as 'the church,' as most Indonesians seem to see them, there can be serious problems.

These Friends want to open a school which will teach farming, and teaching spiritual things by imparting life. There may be a little a little academic training, but mostly, they want to train through meeting and community which has real spiritual life. Prayers about this, and the possibility of my involvement would be much appreciated. This training center really fits with the model for a training center that has been on my heart for a month or two.

I have found the Quaker thread quite interesting and edifying.

It really is amazing how many small groups of people throughout history have seen the church as fallen and attempted to return things to the biblical norm. We are not the first, nor are we alone, rather we are the heirs.

Concerning the specifics that many of us have convictions, about I think of the many men and women who saw the things, at least some of them, that we see. The Plymouth Brethren, and their desire for participatory meetings of a 1 Corinthians 14: 22 - 40 and Ephesians 4 vein. The Separatist, and also the Anabaptist, who envisioned a church in which all members were truly believers in Christ Jesus. Alexander Campbell, and those around him, (later to become the Church of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ) working for the church to overcome it's sectarianism and creedialism. The Reformers, Wycliffe, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, arguing for a priesthood of believers, scriptures in the common tongue, and a more personal faith. And of course the Quakers, proclaiming the importance of the Holy Spirit in the gathering of the saints, the problems of the "steeplehouse" and the "hireling".

All of the above mentioned groups I personally have major doctrinal differences with. Yet they are our brothers, the saints who have gone on before us. These are the men in whose footsteps we follow, and we would do well to study and understand their triumphs and trials. Where they succeeded and where they went wrong.

In many cases they tried to institutionalize what the Lord had shown them, to reduce it down to a formula ~ if you didn't fit you were one of "them", if you did you were one of "us". The "us" vs. "them" propaganda only succeeded in hindering the message. The institutionalization only succeeded in killing the life and reducing it to formalities.

Others slowly adopted the structures they had once condemned. (What's the difference between an IC "steeplehouse" and a Quaker "meetinghouse"???) Or carried their beliefs to such a ridiculous extreme that in the end they destroyed what they once stood for. Or were caught up in petty differences that made them dividable, thus conquerable. Or became dominated by one man who led them astray.

Let us take be cautious, for we are no better men than they, that we do not repeat our history.

As a side note, some may find it interesting that the Separatist, and author of Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan, spent much time attacking the Quaker theory of "inner light" until he was in jail (for preaching without a license, if I remember correctly), incidentally with a devout Quaker man. The more they talked, the story goes, the more Bunyan realized that they were really generally agreed, but had to over come each others foreign terminology.