Letters - 10 June 2015
From the seeds of peace to inequality
Seeds of peace
I welcome John Lampen’s articles (12 and 19 June) and Alastair McIntosh’s highlighting of key questions concerning the Quaker approach to conciliation (19 June). There is, of course, no Quaker monopoly of good work in this important area.
Quakers often work with non-Quaker colleagues. There is, however, a place for a uniquely Quaker contribution. Peacemaking ‘as a profession’ inevitably carries pressures for successful outcomes and value for money: practitioners vie for funding and time is limited. Quaker involvement in long-term peace work has often been amazingly free from these pressures. Those working on our behalf have been enabled to spend time listening to the Spirit – in those they encounter and within their team. Quakers have willingly committed to years of involvement, even when ‘success’ seemed elusive. This open-ended approach can signal genuine spiritual nurturing – being alongside people trapped by their situation. Freedom to follow leadings is an aspect of Alastair’s ‘quaking and beseeching in God’s power’; so is the acceptance that our work remains unsung. We don’t seek credit for success, which is difficult when we want to publicise what Quakers are doing! If we value this work, can we provide the necessary resources? We heard at Yearly Meeting how the range of Quaker Peace & Social Witness peacebuilding programmes has been reduced considerably over the years. Should we reconsider the balance of our work? Might we give a higher priority to low profile, long-term and open-ended conciliation work? There is an urgent need for reassessment.
Janet Quilley
John Lampen’s inspiring articles give us a small insight into the mediation work done on our behalf throughout the world. He draws attention to key requirements, which facilitate this work – including ‘Mediators must be neutral’– and reports comments from the Balkans: ‘Quakers are different… other…. organisations come with agendas and programmes.’
I am concerned that these comments may no longer be perceived to be correct and wonder what effect this may have on Quakers’ ability to mediate.
Our sometimes cumbersome procedures can be frustrating to those who wish ‘Quakers’ to offer an instant response with public statements in support of this or that cause. So, we regularly see reports in the Friend of Friends joining third party demonstrations under a banner reading ‘Quakers for (or against)…’.
The Society is right to use its time honoured methods to ensure that statements from Quakers are a true reflection of our concerns but such banners are themselves uncontrolled public statements. These may damage our reputation and our ability to mediate in the sort of situations John has described should they create the impression that we are no longer neutral.
I wonder why small groups of Friends wishing to support third party public events for totally legitimate reasons feel it necessary to involve, unilaterally, the whole of the Society in their actions when there will, almost certainly, be Friends who would disagree with either the cause or the methods the third party uses. Surely, each Friend’s individual contribution and commitment is sufficient in these cases?
Robert Campbell
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.