menno said:
We do need our Quakers represented. I know nothing about them other than a fella name George Fox and they're called "Friends" and no sacraments and they used to make the upper class angry by the way they addressed them.
Well, looks like you got the gist of it anyway!
Actually, Quakerism has changed sooo much since it was "started". Honestly, it's hardly anything like it started out. Most people associate these words with quakerism : pacifists, mild, quiet, non-evangelical, non-political, black hats, etc. In reality, the first Quakers were very evangelical, they were Not mild or quiet, they were very political, and tended to get into quite amazing arguments with other denominations. They were a very passionate bunch, passionate about what they saw was a bunch of people being led around by the nose by the so called religious, and not given the freedom (or knowledge) to worship God in their own way. In an effort to get out from under the "pharasees of the day" as they called the religious leaders....they dumped all sacraments and titles and most everything else associated with "church" and just started meeting together, letting each person speak as they felt led, or not speak if that's the case.
They were called Quakers first as a derogatory term, because the first Quakers would be so empassioned when they spoke of their beliefs they would "quake". They took on the term happily, because to them it signified a good thing, this passion for their faith.
But, as all new religions do, as more and more people joined, and since they encouraged a personal walk of faith, quakerism naturally split into several groups. Right now their are 3 main types of Quakers.
Evangelical Friends Meeting, which are the most "orthodox" of the bunch, they place the bible as the final athority, and claim that they are the closest to the "original" quakers as far as their beliefs go--they are also the ones that seem closer to methodism than quakerism to me(personal opinion there) . Most Evangelical Friends churches practice the sacraments also, accepting and even performing baptisms, and partaking of communion occationally. In my mind, they've lost quite a bit of what's commonly thought of as "quaker", but perhaps George Fox never envisioned quakerism as becoming what it did following the years after his death, either......
The Friend General Conference, in which most of the unprogrammed meetings are a part of--they are also the most unorthodox of the bunch, in which alot of non-christian 'quakers' belong. Quite a few are universalists, and you even have a few that have turned quakerism in to some sort of spiritualized paganism; athough to be fair, there are plenty of good solid christians in this organization, it's just much more tolerant of extreme views than the other two organizations.
Friends United Meeting, which is programmed, but not as "orthodox" perhaps as the evangelical friends. I grew up part of the Friends United Meeting. The FUM is very peace oriented, and missions oriented also. They have ministers, but also spend a large portion of the meeting in quiet time. I'd say the FUM is a good balance between the EFM and the FGC, but I'm sure I'm a bit biased!
So there you have it, a quick, perhaped convoluted explanation of quakers. Very badly done, I'm sure. Wikepedia's entry is very good, if you want to get a better explanation.