Britain Yearly Meeting

Derrick Whitehouse reflects on Yearly Meeting – earlier, now and ahead

Britain Yearly Meeting 2016 brought hundreds of Quakers to Friends House in London. I was standing in the queue for coffee and said to the Friend beside me: ‘Hello – where are you from?’ She told me, and then said: ‘This is my first time at Yearly Meeting (YM). How many times have you been?’ I responded: ‘It must be around forty by now.’ Later, I reflected how over the years YM has fluctuated with ups and downs in a variety of ways.

My first time at YM was in 1973, when Derek Crosfield was clerk and George Gorman gave the Swarthmore Lecture on The Amazing Fact of Quaker Worship. I was blown away by the manner in which the sessions were managed and the truly spiritual uplift that came from both the sessions but especially from our dear Friend’s lecture. In fact, George became a great personal friend. I knew from then on that attending YM would be an essential part of my Quaker life. At that time I had been worshipping with Friends for around nine years and been interested in the Quaker way for around eight years before that.

Stillness and reflection

I now recall how, over the years, the clerking styles at YM have ebbed and flowed. I have even served on Arrangements Committee two or three times. There have been moments in sessions when there would be so many Friends standing, waiting to be called, that the clerk would ask for a period of stillness and reflection as to the value of their contribution; then, after as much as ten minutes of inward stillness and worship, very few would stand. On another occasion I recall the clerk saying: ‘It does no good to keep standing, because the dialogue is moving on – so I am more likely to call somebody who stands for the first time, because it is felt, at the table, they will have new insights to help us progress.’ This is no longer happening. It appears, sometimes, that Friends are being invited to stand and contribute.

Our YM functioning style continues to unfold. We are now immersed in the ‘computer age’. This year, for me, the sessions felt more like ‘bland blogging’. I missed the expression of real spiritual substance as it used to be in YMs long gone. Today, Friends were managed as if for a lesson in a classroom, with set questions to discuss with your neighbour. Later, I thought we could do that in the coffee queue or next to an old Friend, or newcomer, over a meal, even on the train travelling home with Friends. I now feel these spontaneous conversations are the best thing about coming to YM.

There is a deep anxiety amongst Friends over our future and this is reflected in the manner that Yearly Meeting is being structured. My critical scrutiny and interpretation is born out through participant observation. All around I perceive so many opinions and possible strategies being expressed about our concern for the survival of ‘our beloved Religious Society’, as our late Friend Alastair Heron frequently referred to it.

Today this concern appears to be handled more through intellectual dialogue – rather than by trust and being truly Spirit-led at every point of the discernment. We give lip service to our decision-making process of waiting and listening for guidance from the inner teacher, or whatever we wish to call it. Yet, in my view, it is not actually happening in practice. Is this out of fear to express openly our faith to one another? Or is it that we do not see it put into practice in our Local Meetings, especially in our Meetings for Worship for Business?

We seem to be no longer a people of prayer. We do not nurture each other in those things that are eternal, even if we talk about it a great deal. So, how can we expect inexperienced people to participate in Yearly Meeting when their hearts and minds are not equipped in the way things used to be? Hitherto, Friends would minister in Yearly Meeting to let us know precisely where their faith and wisdom was coming from. It may be the Light or from God, but one hopes it is from somewhere beyond the intellect and self, which I choose to call either the transpersonal or the enigmatic essence.

Spiritual support

Each term is equally potent – whatever we call the guidance that comes from beyond – and we must let each other know there is something there, which we can feel, know and trust without doubt and call upon for inspiration. Assuming we have faith, what we choose to call it will be powerful, have value, become uplifting, accurate and more meaningful than simply resorting to our intelligence, which is always likely to be flawed.

Sadly, even reports on our social witness come over as if from a secular form of altruism. This is almost certainly not a true description, but it could be so much richer if we could hear about the spiritual support being expressed with more forcefulness.

My heart goes out to the newcomer to Yearly Meeting. Will they feel the same as I did after my experience all those years ago? Or is it that I am now out of touch, as an old stager in his eighty-fourth year, and that I need to accept that things have moved on?

My lingering challenge asks if we are still truly a ‘Religious’ Society of Friends or are we a quasi-mystical-mechanistic association of friends thrashing around and not quite sure where we are heading? Do we feel we have lost the way and wherewithal to lift ourselves up beyond the present slump to rediscover dependable ways of knowing, understanding and developing? Have we misplaced the desire, will and ability to express outwardly and in practice act on how we are perfected by and trust that which is beyond all understanding, yet is always there?

A re-worked way

If we achieve a re-worked way then we will overcome the fluctuations and oscillations of our current anxiety and our present imperfect, inconsistent and intellectual approach. We will become more knowing, trusting and outwardly share the experience of the enigmatic essence. Then, and only then, all things will be well.

Now, I simply wonder if my newfound Friend in the coffee queue returned to her Meeting enriched and spiritually uplifted in a way that was similar to how I felt all those years ago. I shall remain and continue to chivvy in whatever manner I feel spiritually led and then, with hope in my heart, to know in our Yearly Meeting that each one of us can become an integral fragment of a people of prayer, of worship and social witness, making our contribution towards creating a loving and caring world.

Have I lost the plot or is it we who have lost it? Do you see it differently? With our testimony of speaking truth to power should Quakers in Britain, in honesty, now refer to themselves as the beloved ‘quasi-secular/vaguely-religious’ Society of Friends? Can we put to flight this description with love in our hearts and graciousness towards one another with understanding, where we will outwardly proclaim and adventurously live our spiritual testimonies?

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment