Meeting for Sufferings: ‘A simple church supported by a simple charity’
Meeting for Sufferings considered the role of the body in prioritising centrally managed work on 6 October
‘We have a huge agenda today,’ Anne Ullathorne, clerk of Meeting for Sufferings (MfS), observed on Saturday 6 October in Friends House, London.
The Young People’s Participation Day ran parallel to the gathering, which included updates and ministry on investment, diversity, sustainability and vibrancy.
The minute on ‘Priority-setting for centrally managed work’ was initially prompted by a concern in 2017 from Kingston and Wandsworth Area Meeting about governance.
On the role of Sufferings, Anne Ullathorne said that over the years there had been ‘major changes in the organisation of Friends’ – for instance, MfS itself had become a much smaller body.
The paper she had prepared for MfS was on ‘my understanding of how things are things at the moment’ regarding the relationship between Meeting for Sufferings and Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) trustees in respect of the work of BYM.
‘All the work has come from concerns at one time or another,’ she said and ‘does this paper reflect what you see happening now?’
A BYM trustee said the process of addressing these issues was ‘like a ball of wool that has got utterly, utterly tangled up’. It could not be untangled all at once.
A Friend welcomed the report, saying: ‘Our different processes always throw things up.’ These included ‘employment law’, ‘good management practice’ and ‘security in work’. The Friend continued: ‘In the context of how uncertain the times are politically, it is hard be agile and nimble in the way we respond.’
A Quaker from Scotland was ‘a little concerned’ about the relationship between Sufferings and trustees. ‘We understand Sufferings as being Yearly Meeting out of session. It appears that a rewriting of the Book of Discipline [could] narrow the responsibility of Sufferings.’
A Friend talked about ‘the scrutiny of [BYM] trustees and what they do… I’m not saying that it should always be questioned, but there should be a mechanism for that to happen.’
Another Friend said: ‘My sense is that we do have the opportunity talk to trustees…We have to be clear about where the legal responsibilities lie – with the trustees.’
While Sufferings could ‘approve’, in a legal sense ‘we are not the decision-making body’.
In a related agenda item Ingrid Greenhow, clerk of BYM trustees, spoke to their report. She said: ‘How we decide what we do, if you prefer plain speaking’.
She continued: ‘We decided to remove the £50,000 limit [on projects allocated by Management Meeting].’ Instead, three trustees will be appointed to consider all legacy funded project proposals on an ad hoc, between meetings basis.
She added that subcommittees were being made ‘smaller and more effective. We’ve made a start, but there is still much to do.’
Ingrid Greenhow also described activities being done on strategic priorities working towards ‘a simple church supported by a simple charity, to reinvigorate Quakerism’.
She said: ‘As important as what we do is how we do it.’
She continued: ‘It is ‘hard to say no where we see a need’.
Nevertheless, she suggested: ‘We need to discern what we are called to do now… where there is a particular Quaker need.’
She concluded: ‘This doesn’t mean that trustees are going to disappear into a black hole and do their own thing. Let us trust each other, Friends.’
A Friend expressed concern that ‘central committees are being bypassed’ – not through ‘malice’, but from a powerful ‘desire to get things done’.
Another Friend said: ‘Trustees will take on more and more. That may be appropriate, but has there been sufficient discernment?’
In the view of one Friend : ‘The Spirit should move through governance rather than burst through… That seems dangerous for God and people.’
Another speaker was ‘amazed trustees organise so much. I can’t juggle a single tumbler.’
The Friend said it was important to ‘value local and individual concerns, and make our voices heard.’
Another Friend was ‘sad to hear some of the ministry’.
They continued: It’s not “they”, it’s “us”…. We are all in this together on behalf of the Society of Friends. It is no accident this particular role is called “TRUSTee”.’
The minute was accepted by Sufferings. It was anticipated that issues associated with it would return for further discussion in the future.
Comments
Because of the diversity of the ministry, and because I was not at Meeting for Sufferings, I should be grateful to read the minute which was adopted.
By John H on 11th October 2018 - 15:25
Please login to add a comment
