What do you think?
Rate this book
Pendle Hill Pamphlets
Rethinking Quaker Principles
. booklet, Pendle Hill no 8, light wear to covers, clean tight copy
26 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 3, 2014
1 person is currently reading
3 people want to read
About the author
Rufus Matthew Jones
222 books11 followersRufus Matthew Jones (January 25, 1863 – June 16, 1948) was an American religious leader, writer, magazine editor, philosopher, and college professor. He was instrumental in the establishment of the Haverford Emergency Unit (a precursor to the American Friends Service Committee). One of the most influential Quakers of the 20th century, he was a Quaker historian and theologian as well as a philosopher. He is the only person to have delivered two Swarthmore Lectures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 21, 2021
Written in 1940. Jones appears to have been a prolific author on Quaker history and related topics. He is oft quoted in subsequent pamphlets and print materials from the Society of Friends.
Jones provides a brief context for the origin or arising of Quakerism by outlining the fundamental beliefs of Calvin’s theological system as practiced by the Puritans.
The Calvinists took the “conception of God as the absolute sovereign of the universe, whose inscrutable will determines irresistibly everything that happens in the visible and invisible worlds. The Puritans took over too, Calvin’s conception of man in his fallen state as wholly depraved and corrupt and involved by the ’Fall’ in utter moral ruin, a being wholly devoid of merit... Man’s possible deliverance is due entirely to the grace and mercy of God revealed and made effective through Christ’s propitiatory offering on the Cross, by which those who are elect and who accept the proffered means are saved — all others are eternally lost and doomed to Hell. The Bible is His one and only communication to the human race, and contains all that man can ever know or needs to know of God’s will and purpose.” (pp. 6-7)
For me, the above conception of God can be interpreted to be consistent with Spinoza and science. The rest is much more problematic for me, irrational, and logically unsupported.
Jones then points out the New Testament outlines three possible ways for the formal Christian church to be organized. Catholics and Episcopalians embraced Paul’s hierarchical structure of deacons and bishops managing affairs and the message. Presbyterians and Calvinists followed Acts and John with elders running affairs, which led to ministers and preachers. Quakers and Congregationalists embraced the direct words of Jesus for each individual to follow their own light and calling. (pp. 7-8)
“Society of Friends” is 1667.” (p. 13) George Fox had started his ministry in 1643.
Quakerism was not considered a church (and still does not consider itself one), Jones explains, because it lacked three essential aspects of all formal Christian churches up to that time: ordination, sacraments, and a creed. (p. 14)
Jones holds that during the second phase of Quakerism much of the trappings of the false Christianity began to appear and it was time for Quakers, in this new phase to ask themselves: “Are we charged with hope and faith and vision or are we busy endeavoring to coin repetitive phrases and to become secure resting places for the mind?” (p. 20) He prefers Quakers to embrace the former, more active role.
In part two Jones lays out his understanding of the Quaker way of life.
I disagree with Jones’ point: “The approach to God is not primarily up through nature and the natural order; it is rather through the soul of man which is essentially spirit and therefore, may commune with the Spirit.” (pp. 30-31)
Man is so removed from the rest of nature and God is everything, therefore man should look for, find and be able to commune with God in nature. If for no other reason than to restore, rebuild and reaffirm man’s humility and insignificance. Only looking within may further sustain, unintentionally, man’s alienation from most of God’s being or essence, or Spirit.
He goes on to say, the early Quakers “knew God experimentally.” (p. 31.) I think he means experientially and that by his previous comments, we see it was only a partial experience blinded by anthropocentrism.
Jones holds Quakers must recognize “a world built on purely secular lines would be a world that would fester and spoil and corrupt as has always happened.” (p. 34) Recent political (Trump) and economic events as capitalism reaches its limits show us too well extreme secularism is dangerous.
Jones provides a brief context for the origin or arising of Quakerism by outlining the fundamental beliefs of Calvin’s theological system as practiced by the Puritans.
The Calvinists took the “conception of God as the absolute sovereign of the universe, whose inscrutable will determines irresistibly everything that happens in the visible and invisible worlds. The Puritans took over too, Calvin’s conception of man in his fallen state as wholly depraved and corrupt and involved by the ’Fall’ in utter moral ruin, a being wholly devoid of merit... Man’s possible deliverance is due entirely to the grace and mercy of God revealed and made effective through Christ’s propitiatory offering on the Cross, by which those who are elect and who accept the proffered means are saved — all others are eternally lost and doomed to Hell. The Bible is His one and only communication to the human race, and contains all that man can ever know or needs to know of God’s will and purpose.” (pp. 6-7)
For me, the above conception of God can be interpreted to be consistent with Spinoza and science. The rest is much more problematic for me, irrational, and logically unsupported.
Jones then points out the New Testament outlines three possible ways for the formal Christian church to be organized. Catholics and Episcopalians embraced Paul’s hierarchical structure of deacons and bishops managing affairs and the message. Presbyterians and Calvinists followed Acts and John with elders running affairs, which led to ministers and preachers. Quakers and Congregationalists embraced the direct words of Jesus for each individual to follow their own light and calling. (pp. 7-8)
“Society of Friends” is 1667.” (p. 13) George Fox had started his ministry in 1643.
Quakerism was not considered a church (and still does not consider itself one), Jones explains, because it lacked three essential aspects of all formal Christian churches up to that time: ordination, sacraments, and a creed. (p. 14)
Jones holds that during the second phase of Quakerism much of the trappings of the false Christianity began to appear and it was time for Quakers, in this new phase to ask themselves: “Are we charged with hope and faith and vision or are we busy endeavoring to coin repetitive phrases and to become secure resting places for the mind?” (p. 20) He prefers Quakers to embrace the former, more active role.
In part two Jones lays out his understanding of the Quaker way of life.
I disagree with Jones’ point: “The approach to God is not primarily up through nature and the natural order; it is rather through the soul of man which is essentially spirit and therefore, may commune with the Spirit.” (pp. 30-31)
Man is so removed from the rest of nature and God is everything, therefore man should look for, find and be able to commune with God in nature. If for no other reason than to restore, rebuild and reaffirm man’s humility and insignificance. Only looking within may further sustain, unintentionally, man’s alienation from most of God’s being or essence, or Spirit.
He goes on to say, the early Quakers “knew God experimentally.” (p. 31.) I think he means experientially and that by his previous comments, we see it was only a partial experience blinded by anthropocentrism.
Jones holds Quakers must recognize “a world built on purely secular lines would be a world that would fester and spoil and corrupt as has always happened.” (p. 34) Recent political (Trump) and economic events as capitalism reaches its limits show us too well extreme secularism is dangerous.
Displaying 1 of 1 review