Letters - 05 July 2013
From speaking truth to power to language
Speaking truth to power
In view of the articles by Mairead Maguire, which were an eye-opener to me (6 and 13 June), and the articles by Peter Emerson (7 June) and Jan Arriens (7 June), and the letters from David Bartlett (7 June) and John Lampen (14 June), I wonder if it isn’t time for Meeting for Sufferings to face up to the world we are living in and ‘speak truth to power’.
In other words, to tell the government that Syria and Lebanon want to be left alone to sort out their own problems without interference from outside powers and interests: tell them that they would like to negotiate themselves for the sale of their oil reserves, which both Lebanon and Syria have.
Meeting for Sufferings should also point out to the country that we no longer have a parliament (a place where matters are discussed) but a highly privileged debating society, where the time is spent scoring points off each other. We need to get back to consensus politics, as mentioned by Peter Emerson, operated in a building with an interior similar to the Scottish parliament.
Joan Goddard
Yearly Meeting
I shared many of the reservations about Yearly Meeting expressed by Jan Arriens (7 June). The theme of these three consecutive YMs is intended to be ‘What it means to be a Quaker today’, which I have assumed, perhaps wrongly, to be part of a process for renewing or energising Quakers in Britain. I was expecting that we would be addressing some difficult questions of Quaker belief and practice but, from reading the minutes, I do not get the feeling that Friends addressed such questions. Of course, it might be difficult for us to reach unity on some issues, but, surely, that is what our process of discernment is intended to enable us to do. As Jan says, we have difficulty in allocating enough time to difficult issues, but that should not prevent us trying.
Coincidentally, in the following week’s edition (14 June), Peter Emerson put forward a process called consensus voting for allowing a genuine consensus to emerge where there are a wide range of policy options. The process requires all concerned to be involved in generating the options and then a debating and preference voting process is carried out to search for the option which attracts the greatest support.
I am a great supporter of our Quaker discernment process but this does not mean that I think it cannot be improved. I think that we should be sufficiently open to new ideas to be willing to consider whether we can learn from others about making difficult decisions.
Trevor Evans
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.