I may be a Calvinist Quaker, or just a Quaker with understanding of sound doctrine. A Puritan who doesn't engage in Jewish ritual or man-fearing clericalism/churchism. Maybe just a bold Zwinglian. It doesn't matter. I'm a child of the light. Regeneration separates the wheat from the chaff. That is accomplished by the Word and the Spirit.
If I anchored myself within an Evangelical Quaker thing, or even just any Quaker communion, maintaining, in good Quaker style, my understanding of the faith despite what others around me may me thinking the faith is all about, I'd be less likely to write posts like the one immediately below (not that that post isn't on-the-mark in substance).
The fact is: I see formalism, ritualism, clericalism, and moralism in all Protestant domains, and obviously in the other branches. And I have an understanding things Quakers have a history of and even a language of. Five solas child of the light may be it. (The word 'quaker' is a pejorative like Puritan which means people who 'trembled' at the Word of God. Not physically. Atheists call themselves Quakers today, but a real Christian holds the Bible to be authority, which the Quakers historically have.)
I'm just saying that since I've been accused of being a church unto myself (or denomination or whatever) the fact is, ironically, the people called Quakers of the 1600s held to views of sacraments and church and so on that I hold to. I say ironically because I understand the doctrines of grace (Calvinism) and the five solas and Federal Theology and so on, and Quakers have a historical reputation of not even valuing the Word of God, which is not accurate, at least not accurate for the ones who were able, by the Spirit, to value the Word of God. Most Reformed/Calvinists don't value the Word of God in the sense that they deny the Holy Spirit as teacher and illuminator, despite Calvin historically being called the theologian of the Holy Spirit (John Owen as well). They default back to Romanist notions of 'church authority.' I really just differ on the ritual 'sacraments' thing and the man-fearing church nonsense (Village of Morality). Otherwise I'm a plain path Puritan. The Quakers were Puritans who just didn't hold to Jewish ritual and man-fearing church nonsense. Maybe not all of them, but not everybody is at the same level or stage of understanding of the faith, if they're even yet capable of understanding the faith (i.e. if they yet have the Spirit).
The local Quaker (Society of Friends) church seems like a regular Protestant evangelical church. The other one probably is the unitarian, atheist, "Hands off Saddam!" peace wankers Quaker church. It doesn't matter, I'm just pointing out that historically, going back to the Reformation, there are Christians that have held to the view I hold to. Nothing new under the sun. I always had to admit I'm not a Reformed or Presbyterian or even Calvinist in the full meaning of that. If pinned down to something actually historical though there does exist something I seem to be in sync with. Even the quiet (clearing) inner light (by whatever name) practices. I may know more about that than they do though.