Meeting for Sufferings: Friends reject plans to change AM representation
A proposal to change the way representatives are nominated was rejected by Meeting for Sufferings
Friends ministered passionately against proposals to change the system for nominating representatives to attend Meeting for Sufferings.
The recommendations would mark a shift from the current system in which Area Meetings, and other bodies, nominate one ‘representative’ and one ‘alternate’ to attend. Instead it was mooted that ‘in future each body [is] represented by one nominated appointee, with a visitor attending when the representative is prevented’.
Despite representatives being told the new system would be ‘quite similar to what does happen’, most Friends in the room firmly rejected the idea. One Friend said that when he first came to Meeting for Sufferings, he found it ‘terribly confusing and opaque’. He said that ‘to have someone to talk to and help ease myself in has been valuable’. Others warmed to the theme of ‘support’, with one person pointing out the practicalities of having the ‘standby’ of the ‘alternate’. He said: ‘They have an idea of what’s going on and they get the documents in advance’. If there was just one designated person, he added, a visitor ‘won’t have the documents in advance and won’t be in a position to reflect helpfully on the business in hand’.
Another Friend said that representatives and alternates can negotiate attendance ‘months in advance’, adding wearily: ‘If it is nobody’s job to do it, it will be just another thing we have to ask for volunteers for.’
Another Friend reflected on their experience of attending as a visitor because neither the representative or alternate could attend: ‘It was unclear what my role was, or whether I could speak. Having an alternate is good because there is flexibility, but they are building up the capacity to do the work.’
Some Friends felt that the recommendations could undermine the Society’s commitment to ‘diversity and inclusion’. ‘The more there is in a group, the more chance there is of inclusion and diversity,’ said one Young Friend.
A trustee said that he was only able to go to Meeting for Sufferings as a Young Friend in the past, because four friends were able to attend. He added that the Simpler Churches process, which could mean the number of AMs reduces to as a few as thirty-five, could result in a very small Meeting for Sufferings, which could limit inclusion even more.
Friends who had spoken to the proposal responded by saying that they were ‘very clearly’ getting the sense that ‘when it works, it works well’, but the recommendations were in response to past situations where there had been an occasional ‘lack of continuity’ in people attending.
One Friend replied that ‘a number of us’ felt ‘it would compound these problems’. She said that, currently with an alternate, she had been ‘feeling anxious about who can come, as they don’t have the papers’. She went on: ‘I’ve felt very isolated over the months. We felt very strongly that this was moving in the wrong direction.’
However, one Quaker urged a ‘word of caution’: ‘All of us can see the advantages in the current situation. What we can’t see are the advantages and disadvantages of change. It strikes me this is an attempt to simplify. I think this suggestion merits further discussion before we say no.’
The minute recorded: ‘We are not able to unite with any of the options proposed. We ask Meeting for Sufferings Arrangements Group to consider the matter further and welcome comments from AMs.’
