Johan Maurer: Whose faith? Whose practice?

April 16, 2026

Johan Mau­r­er brings up a ques­tion in a post about what was the Lon­don Year­ly Meet­ing’s book of Chris­t­ian Faith and Prac­tice. He asks whether our prac­tices should be treat­ed as mod­els we’d expect oth­er Chris­tians to follow.

I sup­pose that in either case, Chris­t­ian or Quak­er, the pre­vail­ing assump­tion was that these books are for inter­nal use among Friends. This is who we are, more or less. But what I like about the title Chris­t­ian Faith and Prac­tice is anoth­er inter­pre­ta­tion entire­ly, one I have no per­mis­sion or evi­dence to pro­pose: this way of faith and life is not just for us; it’s rec­om­mend­ed for all Chris­tians.

I’d argue a strong yes to this. When I think about what ancient Quak­er odd­i­ties might still be rel­e­vant, one of the ques­tions I ask myself is whether we could argue that the whole church should also adopt the prac­tice (how­ev­er unlike­ly that might be in real­i­ty). If it’s just some Quak­er canard, we can toss it into an antiq­ui­ty dust­bin. But if all Chris­tians should be fol­low­ing the prac­tice, then let’s set the example.

I like Thomas Clarkson’s his­tor­i­cal account of Friends par­tic­u­lar­ly because he’s not writ­ing for a Quak­er audi­ence. I get the feel­ing he’s hold­ing our prac­tices up for scruti­ny, as if to say that maybe every­one should be fol­low­ing them and indeed, his paci­fism and abo­li­tion­ism were great­ly influ­enced by the Friends he met in his work.

Of course this wit­ness to oth­er Chris­tians sort of falls apart if we don’t con­sid­er our­selves Chris­t­ian. If online dis­course is any indi­ca­tion, there are large num­bers of Quak­ers who are rather obliv­i­ous that almost all of our Quak­er iden­ti­ty has a bib­li­cal basis (selec­tive, of course, and also inter­pret­ed, debat­ed and chang­ing). Quak­erism is seen as some­thing that just ran­dom­ly popped up in the world. None of the ear­ly Friends would have thought that.

Friendship even when cutting edges don’t overlap

March 8, 2007

C Wess Daniels has a good “post fol­low­ing up the Quak­er Her­itage Day events”:http://gatheringinlight.com/2007/03/08/learning-a-new-language-while-building-a-house-reflections-on-quaker-heritage-day/ last week­end in Berke­ley. The fea­tured speak­er was Bri­an Dray­ton, a New Eng­land Friend in the lib­er­al unpro­grammed tra­di­tion who’s been doing a lot of good work around reclaim­ing traditionally-minded Quak­er min­istry (at least that’s how _I’d_ pigeon-hole him from afar, I’ve nev­er actu­al­ly met him!).

Con­tin­ue read­ing

It’s witness time

December 2, 2005

Hi Quak­er­Ran­ter friends: I’ve been busy today cov­er­ing the Quak­er response to the Chris­t­ian Peace­mak­ers Teams hostages. Two sites with a lot of over­lap­ping content:

  • Quak­er Blog Watch page focused on the hostages
  • “Non​vi​o​lence​.org state­ment and list of responses

Both of these fea­ture a mix of main­stream news and Quak­er views on the sit­u­a­tion. I’ll keep them updat­ed. I’m not the only busy Friend: Chuck Fager and John Stephens have a site called Free the Cap­tives — check it out.

It’s always inter­est­ing to see the moments that I explict­ly iden­ti­fy as a Friend on Non​vi​o​lence​.org. As I saythere, it seems quite appro­pri­ate. We need to explain to the world why a Quak­er and three oth­er Chris­tians would need­less­ly put them­selves in such dan­ger. This is wit­ness time, Friends. The real deal. We’re all being test­ed. This is one of those times for which those end­less com­mit­tee meet­ings and boil­er­plate peace state­ments have pre­pared us.

It’s time to tell the world that we live in the pow­er that “takes away the occa­sion for war and over­comes our fear of death” (well, or at least mutes it enough that four brave souls would trav­el to dan­ger­ous lands to wit­ness our faith).

Quaker Emergent Church Planting

May 4, 2004

Over on the Evan­gel­i­cal side of Friends is “Sim­ple Churches”:www.simplechurches.net, a move­ment of “organ­ic” church plant­i­ng. It’s a project of Harold and Wendy Behr, record­ed by North­west Year­ly Meet­ing and now work­ing with Evan­gel­i­cal Friends Church South­west. The core val­ues are ones I could cer­tain­ly sign off on: Lead­er­ship over Loca­tion, Min­istry over Mon­ey, Con­verts over Chris­tians, Dis­ci­ples over Deci­sions, Peo­ple over Prop­er­ty, Spir­it over Self, His King­dom over Ours. I par­tic­u­lar­ly like their site’s disclaimer:
bq. As your peruse the links from this site please rec­og­nize that the Truth reflect­ed in essays are often writ­ten with a “prophet­ic edge”, that is sharp, non com­pro­mis­ing and some­times rad­i­cal per­spec­tive. We believe Truth can be received with­out “curs­ing the dark­ness” and encour­age you to reflect upon find­ing the “can­dle” to light, per­son­al­ly, as you apply what you hear the Lord speak­ing to you. In Body life, often the most pow­er­ful oppo­nent of the “best” is the “good”.
They’re lead­ing a con­fer­ence next month in Rich­mond, Indi­ana, with mem­bers of Friends Unit­ed Meet­ing. How tempt­ing is this?


h3. See also:
* “Emer­gent Church Move­ment: The Younger Evan­gel­i­cals and Quak­er Renewal”:/Quaker/emerging_church.php

The Passion of Uncomfortable Orthodoxies: Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”

February 24, 2004

Mel Gib­son’s movie _The Pas­sion of Christ_ is a chal­lenge for many mod­ern Quak­ers. Most of the rich metaphors of co-mingled joy and suf­fer­ing of the ear­ly Friends have been dumbed-down to feel-good clich­es. Can the debate on this movie help us return to that uncom­fort­able place where we can acknowl­edge the com­plex­i­ties of being fer­vent­ly reli­gious in a world haunt­ed by past sins and still in need of con­vic­tion and comfort?

Con­tin­ue read­ing