A Pacifist Dictionary [written by a U.S. Quaker pacifist, posted on the "nonviolence org website"]

My understanding of the conscientious objector status during WWI & WWII is similar to yours- that the requirements were stricter (you needed to have strong credentials, such as being Quaker, Mennonite, or Amish), but that claiming CO was a lot less controversial- once you were registered you simply served in a non-combat role, without the hullabaloo that surrounded CO in the Vietnam era.

As for the "Christian" issue, that's a tough question, and I think that Quakers are not of one mind about it. Certainly, Quakers are Christian in a historical sense; they arose as a heretical Christian movement in 1600's England, along with the Puritans, Shakers, and many others (and like the Puritans, were persecuted and many were chased to Holland and the colonies).

However, Quakers are notoriously non-doctrinal, so there's no official Quaker creed which states that they are or are not Christian. There are a few core beliefs (that the "Spirit" or "Light" lives in everyone, adherence to pacifism, along with a few others), but nothing like a Nicene Creed that lays out exactly what the theological doctrine is. Quaker doctrine does not include any statement about the precise nature of the trinity, whether Jesus was "begotten, not made", original sin, or other traditional theological topics. Quakers do not practice a number of traditional rituals, such as baptism or communion, but they do perform religious weddings.

I think that the situation among practicing Quakers is much like the situation in other mainline Protestant churches (Episcopal, Presbyterian, etc); some people will say that they are Christian and that Christ is the literal son of God, others will say that they are Christian (in that they worship the Christian God) but that Jesus should be understood to be a great teacher, not the Messiah, and still others will agree that Jesus was a teacher not the savior, and think that that probably makes them "not Christian". It's all a matter of what people understand to be required to count as a Christian.

Different meetings/congregations will have different feels to them. I've been to a conservative meeting ("conservative" in the sense that it's like meetings from the early 1800's, not in its politics which are, by tradition, quite liberal), where a Bible was one of the few books present that people would look at and read from (but usually the parables, not the more doctrinal stuff in Paul's letters). Another meeting I've gone to (and didn't much like) has a "New-Agey" feel to it, and you'll hear more about Gaia than Christ. There are evangelical Quaker churches (mostly in the southwest) where members are "born again through Christ". All of them call themselves Quakers, and the main Quaker organizations try to represent all of their viewpoints.

Overall, though, Quakers spend very little time on whether they are Christian or not, and what it takes to count as Christian; this, I think, is part of the reason why they often don't seem like real Christians. I think the feeling is that it's easy to just say that Jesus was or was not divine, but what's hard (and what really counts) is whether your actions reflect your belief that there is something of the divine in everyone.

Thanks. I would say, though, that the divinity of Christ is (still) integral to the mainline Protestant churches. You might find a few clergy here or there who make some news by not standing firm on the subject, but the creeds are still integral.

"easy to be a pacifist, they have the rest of the country to protect their rights". You have about summed it up, and every Quaker pacifist must feel very troubled with the knowledge that a real flesh and blood non-pacifist died painfully in the mud to allow them their freedom of "conscience".

I would say, though, that the divinity of Christ is (still) integral to the mainline Protestant churches

I agree- the official doctrines of all the mainline Protestant churches I know about still include a statement of the divinity of Christ. As you say, a few ministers here or there might publically disagree, but that doesn't change the official creed of the church.

I was thinking about the actual parishoners, and there I think that there's a wide spectrum of beliefs on these matters. Specifically, I think there's a lot of Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. who would say that they worship the Christian God but do not believe that Jesus was the only son of God in the full literal sense (it is a remarkable and difficult, almost impossible, thing to really believe, as the Catholic Church has been insisting for millenia), even though that belief is part of the official church doctrine.

I think it's like that with the Quakers- parishoners there too have a broad spectrum of beliefs. The difference is that there isn't an official statement on the matter.

Oh, I don't think the divinity of Christ is denied by most practicing Protestants. You are right: It is certainly an incredible notion.

But, of course, that is faith.

completely off-topic from pacifism, but (sort of) relating to the Christian-ness of Quakers, I found this neat little discussion of baptism. It was recorded by Voltaire, who in his insatiable curiosity visited Andrew Pitt, an English Quaker.

"...After a healthy and frugal meal, which started and ended with a prayer to God, I set about questioning my host. I started with the question that good Catholics have put more than once to the Huguenots:

"My dear Sir," I said to him, "are you baptized?"

"No," replied the Quaker, "and neither are my brethren."

"My God!" I replied, "then your are not Christians."

"My son," he replied in a gentle voice, "do not swear. We are Christians and try to be good Christians, but we do not think that Christianity consists of sprinkling cold water on the head."

"Good Heavens!" I replied, shocked at this impiety, "have you then forgotten that Jesus Christ was baptized by John?"

"Friend, no more swearing," said the benign Quaker. "Christ received baptism from John, but he never baptized anybody. We are not disciples of John but of Christ."

"Alas," I said, "you would surely be burned in countries of the Inquisition, you poor man. For the love of God, how I wish I could baptize you and make you a Christian."

"Were that all," he replied gravely, "we would willingly submit to baptism to comply with thy weakness. We do not condemn anyone for using the ceremony of baptism. But we believe that those who profess so holy and so spiritual a religion as that of Christ must abstain, as much as they can, from Jewish ceremonies."

"What! Baptism a Jewish ceremony!" I exclaimed.

"Yes, my son," he continued "and so Jewish that several Jews today still use the baptism of John. Consult antiquity. It will teach thee that John only revived this practice, which was in use a long time earlier amongst the Hebrews, in the same way as the pilgrimage to Mecca by Muslims is copied from the Ismaelites.

"Jesus was willing to receive the baptism of John, in the same way that he submitted to circumcision. But circumcision and the washing with water must both be superseded by the baptism of Christ, this baptism of the Spirit, this washing of the soul, which is the salvation of mankind. Thus the fore-runner, John, said:

'I baptize you to the truth with water, but another will come after me, mightier than me, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with fire and the Holy Ghost.'

"Likewise, the great apostle to the gentiles, Paul, wrote in Corinthians: 'Christ has not sent me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.'

"Indeed, this same Paul only baptized two people with water, and this was in spite of his inclination. He circumcised his disciple, Timothy. The other apostles also circumcised all who wanted it. Art thou circumcised?" he added. I replied that I did not have that honour.

"Ah well," he said, "Friend thou are a Christian without being circumcised, and I am a Christian without being baptized."

They forgot "naïveté".

Voltaire -- one of my favorites. :)

Freedom. A human condition that arises from a generous sufficiency of food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, civil and religious liberties, and employment opportunities. It is a self-limiting condition; it breeds no desire for excess, whether material, behavioral, or political. A truly free person or nation sees that in a world of finite resources the drive for disproportionate wealth and power necessarily exploits or subjugates others and thus betrays humanity’s first principle.

Wait a minute - Isn't freedom just another word for nothing left to lose?

LOL! :)