Meeting for Sufferings: ‘A visionary and prophetic body’
Meeting for Sufferings considered its role and function on 4 October
Representatives of Meeting for Sufferings (MfS), who had travelled to London from every corner of Britain to meet in the George Fox Room at Friends House on Saturday 4 October, were able to take a rare opportunity to look in a mirror.
The main question on the agenda was: What is the role and function of Meeting for Sufferings?
The clerk, Ethel Livermore, explained that the agenda was arranged to allow space to ‘step back’ from the normal procedure and give Sufferings time to think about ‘what we are doing and how we are doing it’.
Anne Ullathorne, convenor of the Meeting for Sufferings Arrangements Group, talked about the work of the Group over the past year. She explained that it had looked at a range of subjects, such as the Terms of Reference of the body, how ‘things get on the agenda’, planning agendas that allowed ‘movement of the spirit within the gathered worship’, the need for long-term strategies, the challenge for MfS to be ‘visionary and prophetic’ and the ambition to be more proactive than reactive.
She highlighted the success of the Regional Gatherings that had been organised and said that since the last Meeting for Sufferings there had been one of these meetings a week in places such as Inverness, Horsham and Saffron Walden. The gatherings, which met under the title of ‘What can Meeting for Sufferings do for me?’, had been extremely helpful in raising awareness of ‘different issues and expectations’.
She mentioned some of the main points raised by an online survey, which was set up earlier this year to hear the views of representatives and alternates. The survey revealed that many Friends welcomed the benefits of having a smaller body but raised concerns such as the need for improving relationships and communication.
Kate Green, convenor of the Meeting for Sufferings Support Group, spoke about the work of the Group and stressed that it ‘welcomed feedback’.
Several Friends spoke of the success of the Regional Gatherings and expressed their appreciation of the hard work that had been put into them.
Anne Ullathorne then told representatives that they would be going into small groups and considering three questions about the role and function of Sufferings:
1. What are we doing well?
2. What could we do differently? (What are we not doing well?)
3. What should we be doing that we are not doing now?
She explained that the functions of Meeting for Sufferings included making statements on issues of concern, the discernment of priorities, taking a ‘visionary and prophetic role’ and on ‘fostering communication throughout Britain Yearly Meeting’.
She reminded Friends that ‘the priorities of centrally managed work should be here!’ Was Sufferings, she said, ‘more reactive’ than ‘proactive’? She highlighted the increasing ‘individualism’ and ‘secularisation’ in wider society that was raised in the Swarthmore Lecture and challenged Friends to consider the effect it might be having on the way things were done.
She talked about the danger of losing ‘our sense of religious community’ and of a weakening of the ‘Quaker voice’. Quoting Roger Wilson from 1949, she reminded Friends that the Society was ‘not a relief organisation’ but a branch of the Christian church. Some fundamental questions needed to be confronted.
Friends then split into smaller groups to consider these questions before lunch. The main session on the role and function of Meeting for Sufferings was conducted in the afternoon.
A contribution made just after lunch had a profound affect on the later session. Speaking to an earlier agenda item on sustainability, a Friend made a heartfelt plea for Quakers in Britain to confront the reality of climate change and its possible catastrophic consequences.
At the start of the main session on the role and function of Meeting for Sufferings, a Friend cited two examples of when concerns that had been brought to the body by Area Meetings had been ‘almost squeezed out’. They were both matters, she felt, of vital concern. She stressed the importance of giving Friends time to deal with subjects adequately. We must not, she said, ‘constrain the Spirit’ and ‘we must give a chance for the Spirit to spread its wings.’
A Friend said that ‘the Spirit can only be heard if we talk’ and she regretted that she had not done so earlier on an agenda item on sustainability.
The description of Meeting for Sufferings as the ‘national representative council of Friends in Britain’ was raised by a Friend. It was a helpful description for those who were not Friends, but he said that he hoped the title ‘Meeting for Sufferings’ would not be dropped. This was the strong opinion of Friends in his Local Meeting. The title might appear old fashioned but it made a very clear connection with the sufferings in the world today and to the sufferings of early Friends.
The work of other faith groups and organisations, it was suggested, was very important. A Friend said Quakers today had a vision but that it was one shared by many others. It was vital to acknowledge this. He mentioned the excellent work done by Churches Together and urged Friends to do more with others.
A Friend reminded those present that when the size of Meeting for Sufferings was reduced its carbon footprint was also reduced. He said that ‘we must take it on board that we do not keep creating committees’ when they may not be necessary.
‘We cannot’, a Friend declared, be ‘drawn into the vortex of fear and negativity’ in relation to climate change. She emphasised the ‘amazing things that were going on in the world’ and cited the ‘Cradle to Cradle’ project as an example this. We are, she said, ‘a creative, intelligent species’ and need ‘to encourage our governments to change’ but if they do not then ‘we have to do it from the grassroots’.
The energy and passion of contributions encouraged a Friend to declare: ‘This is more like it! This is why we are here.’ In order to attend Meeting for Sufferings, he explained, he had got up at a quarter to four in the morning. He was glad. He said that ‘this is what we do well – what we should give time for.’
A Friend, who had been a representative on Sufferings for two trienniums, brought many smiles to faces around the room with an enigmatic contribution. Over the years, she said, she had had different experiences: ‘I have seen Sufferings doing well, and crumpling in a heap, and being “just strange” – what was that about?’ The world was tumbling into an abyss and we received a report from Quaker Peace & Social Witness, she reflected wryly.
There were real tragedies happening in the world. Quakers needed to address them and be seen to be addressing them. A Friend said: ‘Now we are being told that rockets are destroying “convoys and installations” – not people!’ She mentioned the inspiration given to her by Clare Whitehead, a ‘towering peacemaker’ who had died, and said that Friends needed to take their messages and statements to the people – put it on the walls of Friends House and in its café – not just place them on a website or send a letter to the secretary of the prime minister and Local Meetings.
The success of working in small groups was commented on by a Friend. Other positive experiences were mentioned. The decision to recommend that Britain Yearly Meeting disinvest from fossil fuels was cited as a good example of what Sufferings can do when led by the Spirit.
The issue of sustainability continued to feature in the session as an example of where Friends at Meeting for Sufferings had been, and could continue to be, a visionary and prophetic body. A Friend urged Quakers to stand against the development of nuclear power as a source of energy.
The positive mood of the session continued when it was suggested that Friends in Devon, who had brought a concern over sustainability to Meeting for Sufferings, had been ‘led by the Spirit’ and that this leading of the Spirit had ‘been transferred to us’ today.
At the heart of Quakerism, a Friend suggested, was a sense of ethics and morality. This was lacking in much of the world today. This aspect of Quakerism needed to be made much more explicit. It was rarely expressed. The fact that there are people with strong principles and moral values, she believed, encourages others. It is something that Quakers can offer. She said Friends needed ‘to talk about our morals and values more. We tend to be known in the world by the things that we do. We do not talk about why we do them.’
A Friend said that in the morning, when the Devon concern was raised, ‘we did not hear the “still small voice”’ but now, she said, ‘we hear the rushing mighty wind!’
There was a palpable feeling in the room that Friends had been energised and had ‘allowed the Spirit’ to move. A Friend suggested that Meeting for Sufferings needed to ‘take a good hard look at where there is clutter and take it out. Sweep away the dross and give us something where we can look out of the windows and look forward’.
Another Friend reinforced this opinion when she thanked the Arrangements Group for ‘giving us this huge open space for discernment’. She said, to approving nods around the room, that: ‘it has felt like our space as a worshipping community and that is what we need to be – a transformed community.’
Comments
Please login to add a comment
