London Yearly Meeting's Response to the Richmond Declaration, 1887: A Case Study in the Avoidance of Religious Schism
London Yearly Meeting's response to the Richmond Declaration of 1887 was neutral in that it neither endorsed nor rejected it. The Declaration was seen by British Friends in a variety of ways. These included it being viewed as either an affirmation or not of existing Quaker beliefs, a document t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Liverpool University Press
2021
|
| In: |
Quaker studies
Year: 2021, Volume: 26, Issue: 2, Pages: 261-278 |
| IxTheo Classification: | FA Theology KAH Church history 1648-1913; modern history KBF British Isles KBQ North America KDD Protestant Church KDG Free church |
| Further subjects: | B
London Yearly Meeting
B Theological discordance B Richmond Conference B Richmond Declaration B Spiritual authority B Schism |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | London Yearly Meeting's response to the Richmond Declaration of 1887 was neutral in that it neither endorsed nor rejected it. The Declaration was seen by British Friends in a variety of ways. These included it being viewed as either an affirmation or not of existing Quaker beliefs, a document that was more relevant to the American Quaker context, a useful statement of beliefs or an attempt to impose a creed. While failure to accept the Declaration has been interpreted as a move towards supporting an emerging liberal Quakerism, the decision to also not reject it has often been overlooked. An evaluation of the discussions about the Declaration that took place at the Yearly Meeting in London, May 1888, and which were reported in the Quaker journals The British Friend and The Friend (London), highlights the wide range of views that were held. It is proposed that the complex set of relationships that existed between different groups within London Yearly Meeting and the role played by key individuals determined a nuanced response to the Declaration which was sufficiently acceptable to all sides. Paradoxically, this unity was founded upon a collective acceptance of theological discordance within London Yearly Meeting. Consequently, schism was avoided as evangelical, conservative and liberal Quaker narratives were able to coexist alongside a non-committal response to the Declaration. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2397-1770 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Quaker studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.3828/quaker.2021.26.2.6 |