Most Sundays, Mrs Acilius and I can be found in a Quaker meeting down the street from our home. She is a member of that meeting and a convinced adherent of the brand of Christianity associated with Quakerism; I’m not a member of any religious group, nor am I convinced of the truth of any religious doctrine. The Friends are a likeable bunch, though, and I always feel that my time among them is well spent.
In many ways, the Quakers are a group apart from other Protestants. Not in all ways, however. For example, like many mainline Protestant denominations the US branches of Quakerdom are currently rumbling with disputes about the status of homosexuality. In some areas of the country, these disputes have gone very far. The venerable Indiana Yearly Meeting, which has been going since 1821, is apparently considering a proposal to dissolve itself so that the local meetings affiliated with it can sort themselves into pro- and anti-gay groups. Other yearly meetings may be approaching a similar point. That means that Quaker denominations that have already made their minds up about the issue are facing the prospect of reorganizing to accommodate refugees from the divided groups.
Because I hear about this controversy quite often, I took a keen interest in Eve Tushnet’s notes on a talk that Christopher Roberts gave at Villanova University a few years back. This bit especially piqued my interest: “* CR: Progressive theology of marriage separates creation and redemption–for progressive, pro-gay-marriage theologians, sex difference is about creation/procreation and is private, while redemption (linked to marriage?) is ecclesial but unisex. ”
Roberts’ view of “Progressive theology,” as Tushnet relays it here, reminds me of a problem at the heart of the sacramental theology of Quakerism. The Quakers have traditionally held that the sacraments of baptism and communion are entirely “inward”; that is to say, what makes them holy is nothing to do with the physical elements of a ritual, and everything to do with supernatural events involving the soul and the Holy Spirit. So, most Quakers do not practice an initiation ritual involving water, nor do they take wine and bread together in meetings for worship.
I haven’t read deeply on these topics. If I were to study the arguments that have been made for and against Quakerism over the 350 years that the Friends movement has been underway, I wouldn’t be surprised to find some old writer who thought he had reduced Quaker sacramental theology to absurdity in this manner: 1. Quakers hold that the sacraments of baptism and communion are entirely supernatural, and that no particular physical act or material form is necessary to complete them. 2. Quakers do not deny that marriage is a sacrament. 3. Quakers do not provide any reason to regard the sacrament of marriage as radically different from other sacraments. 4. To be consistent, Quakers must therefore hold that no particular physical act or material form is necessary to complete the sacrament of marriage. 5. The difference between male and female is known to us through particular physical acts and material forms, and in no other way. 6. Therefore, Quakers have no grounds for insisting that a marriage requires a male and female body for its consummation.
Nowadays, many Quakers might accept this line of argument, and might proclaim that they are following in the tradition of the weighty Friends of the past when they endorse same-sex marriage. Many others continue to resist it. I’m not at all knowledgeable about Quaker theology, but it might be interesting to learn what sorts of arguments are exchanged in this matter. If you happen to have knowledge I lack, I invite you to comment.