I found this today. Seems relevant to this discussion. (If someone can shorten that link, be my guest.)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree ... tm_source=[!]%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NL%20Progressive%20Christian&utm_content=49114
From personal experience, I've found one of the toughest, most difficult things to do in applying Quaker values is that they are not categorical and distinct, but they overlap and interact. When it comes to systems of doctrine and statements of faith, it is almost the opposite of what I was taught all of my life. There's no expectation of doctrinal conformity, and no expectation that any human study of the scripture or application of faith will be any closer or further from the "truth" than any other. I've found it extremely difficult to get away from drawing conclusions and thinking that what I've discovered, or what a particular preacher or author or denominational perspective has discovered or practices is "closer to the truth" than another. The approach in Seminary was to study theology "systematically" and to develop personal beliefs and convictions based on historical and traditional viewpoints, like Calvinism, Wesleyanism, Arminianism, Catholicism, Anabaptist theology, etc. We're taught to evaluate doctrine by whether we agree with it or not, and to dig in and find corroborating "scripture" to support our points, and we start with where we've presupposed ourselves to what we think is right. I've been in some pretty deep and comprehensive Bible studies over the past couple of years, without any mention of any theological "system" or use of one of their doctrinal points as an accepted conclusion. And while I wouldn't find myself in agreement with the author of the article I posted on many points, I would say that my perspective on many things has shifted considerably from what it was when I was a Southern Baptist denominational loyalist.