Replies

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.

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."