It’s a simple idea, says Christine Downes-Grainger: Reinstate Recognised Meetings

‘The decision came from optimistic thinking.’

During a Business Meeting recently, we pondered whether the four members who still go fairly regularly to our once-a-month Meeting for Worship are able to open up and run it. ‘We need a more nimble approach to being a Quaker,’ said one Friend.

Putting support into the lowest level of our church structure has been recognised in the appointment of local development workers. Some of our Meetings cannot find people to fulfil roles, and want to become worshipping groups. In our Area Simplifying Group we noted, ‘There is no mention of Worshipping Groups in Quaker faith & practice; and that will not absolve people from filling Area roles.’

I see two ways we can shift responsibilities from Local Meetings and small Meetings. This will create the opportunity for ‘liberating Quakers for spiritual growth, community building, outreach and witness in the world’ – the aim of the Simpler Meetings Project. Its manager, Jonathan Carmichael, asked ‘Have we become the Religious Society of Historic Buildings and Community Centres?’ Much Quaker service has been given to support such enterprises, with the reasoning that any surplus income helps us maintain the buildings. First, letting rooms to hirers, overseeing the income, and managing people, could be undertaken at Area Meeting level or by separate trusts. The Meeting houses across London are owned by a Quaker trust. Its focus is maintaining and improving the buildings.

Some Meetings have repurposed buildings as social housing, with a room retained for Quaker use. Others have sold the building and Meet in a rented room or online. Considerable Quaker effort is needed to achieve these results. Keeping a building open requires input from volunteers or staff. Some think that, if a Meeting house is used mainly by hirers, it is too commercial. In my view it is no less commercial than housing. Benefits of continuing to hire are availability for Quaker events, outreach, and the witness of offering time and space to other groups.

Secondly I see a need to reinstate the tier of Recognised Meetings. These were removed from our church structure in 2007. A representative on that group remembers: ‘The laying down of Recognised Meetings was proposed because Friends (wrongly in my view) saw them as a “second class” category of Meeting and wanted to assert the equal value of all Meetings… However every single response received from Recognised Meetings themselves said they valued the status and wanted it retained… because they didn’t want the burden of roles and duties.’ The decision came from optimistic thinking: that the way things were was the way they would continue, with enough members and attenders willing to fill roles. Sadly, not so.

The necessary principle now is that worshipping groups must be linked to a Local Meeting. Then they will be accountable for governance and safeguarding, and everyone can be considered for service. Reinstating this tier will not upset our interlocking circles of responsibility.

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment