'I think there is a strong case to be made for using more of our limited central resources to bring Friends together.' Photo: Alice Gu on Unsplash
Body building: Linda Murgatroyd has a personal take on Quaker structures
‘It is largely through working together that we build our community.’
At Yearly Meeting we were asked to consider our Quaker structures. We looked at Meeting for Sufferings (MfS), trustees, central committees, and Yearly Meeting itself. But in the sessions designated for discernment on these topics, it was striking that most of the ministry from the floor was not about structures. It was instead concerned with processes: inclusion, communication, consultation and so on. This prompted me to some thoughts: if we were to look at these processes, along with other elements of our decision making, it might be that we would discover some new ways to energise Friends, and enable more of us to be involved. We might find some options to complement the decision-making structures that are necessary for an orderly organisation.
Take Meeting for Sufferings. It was originally set up as a representative body, largely to ensure communications with Friends in all parts of the country. But is this still what we need today? In the twenty-first century, we have other ways of communicating. It is important that Friends from different places are involved in our central discernment, but we don’t necessarily need representatives from every Area Meeting (AM) in order to communicate with Friends in those areas. Indeed, while we persevere with this representative structure, some AMs are having trouble finding a representative to nominate; others (which may be ten times as large) may have several Friends who are able and willing to serve.
Whatever structures we have, it’s not always easy for Friends to commit to three-or-more years of service. Sometimes work or living situations are transient, or our health is uncertain. So perhaps one way to be more inclusive might be to have more project-based working groups. These could work together for a few months, or a couple of years at most. Another option might be to set up Friends’ assemblies (along the lines of citizens’ assemblies) to consider particular issues. These could then bring their discernment directly to a Yearly Meeting, or ask for greater authority.
When it comes to consultation, it seems that Friends’ experience has been mixed. The report offered by the working group looking at Yearly Meeting and MfS is one positive example. It suggested three specific directions that Friends could take; it also explained some of the implications of each of these. But some other consultations have only offered one option, without spelling out the implications of the proposed change. These reports also neglected to say why other options had been rejected. If Meeting for Sufferings or Yearly Meeting are to discern priorities, they need to understand the broad costs of alternatives, whether in terms of money or staff time.
I don’t have a clear view of the way forward. But I can think of some options that were not on the table at our recent Yearly Meeting. Some of these, I think, might suit our future needs better. They would, however, require us to look at our processes in a holistic way, rather than just considering our central structures. If, for example, Meeting for Sufferings is retained, its composition might be altered. We could let go of AM nominees and include people with specific interests or expertise that could help the discernment. We already include some representatives from standing committees; could we also draw from Quaker Recognised Bodies, Britain Yearly Meeting staff (via the union?), or project groups? Appointments could also be timed so as to improve continuity.
We should also consider laying down Meeting for Sufferings altogether, and instead envisage some combination of: Yearly Meeting (perhaps gathering more than once a year); trustees (perhaps a larger group); central committees; and a mix of special task groups, assemblies or processes. Some of these groups would need to advise Yearly Meeting directly on certain matters, and perhaps report to trustees on others. We might also need some small committees to handle business such as appointments, or matters concerning Area Meetings and other bodies, but these would be much smaller and have a clearer focus. We would be using people’s time and energy more effectively than the current MfS, which has a wide remit and overly-long agendas.
It is largely through working together that we build our community. This is an important factor: people can learn from one an other in this process. Coming together for learning, threshing and discernment, in a spirit of worship, and to take joint action, has always been an important and precious part of Quaker practice. It can open us up to new Light and energise us more easily than rigid structures or written words. Minute 17 of Yearly Meeting recognises much of this.
Slimming down our national decision-making structures, as a goal in itself, may therefore not be such a good idea after all. We also need to ensure that corporate memory across Britain Yearly Meeting is more widely developed and maintained. I think there is a strong case to be made for using more of our limited central resources to bring Friends together (including face-to-face), to work with a particular focus and share our skills and expertise. Otherwise we end up relying too much on staff, whose expertise and connections may be lost when they leave our employment. Rebuilding our national Quaker community, in new ways, should surely be a priority for the Yearly Meeting – and an important investment.
Right now, we are considering central committees separately from (and before) the relationships between Britain Yearly Meeting, Meeting for Sufferings, and trustees. It is hard to see how some of the options I’m suggesting could emerge from that process. Good work has been undertaken by trustees and the MfS working group, but trustees have now been asked to come up with a new structure for our central committees. Perhaps this task should be given to a wider (more inclusive) group. This group could then report to Yearly Meeting directly, or via Meeting for Sufferings.
Let’s build on the good work undertaken so far, and also on the ministry offered at Yearly Meeting in session. Before we return to the question of formal structures, let’s open ourselves to thinking more widely about how we work together.
