Meeting for Sufferings: Long term framework
Who, what, how, when and where do Quakers in Britain want to be in the next five years?
Who, what, how, when and where do Quakers in Britain want to be in the next five years? These questions are at the heart of the process of developing a vision that will eventually be presented in the Long Term Framework and were a focus for Meeting for Sufferings, which was held in the George Fox Room at Friends House, on Saturday 7 June. The Long Term Framework Working Group, set up by Meeting for Sufferings to develop a Long Term Framework for 2015-2020, stressed that the consultation process should involve all Quakers in Britain.
Julia Gordon, clerk of the Working Group, gave some background on the group and said that the Long Term Framework should be ‘flexible, buoyant and dynamic’. She urged Friends throughout Britain to take part in the consultation process. Its aim was to create a ‘clear, shared, vision of the future’. She stressed the word ‘clarity’ in articulating ‘our varied leadings’ and also the value of feedback.
An important part of the consultation involves developing questions that will help discern Britain Yearly Meeting’s priorities within the wider vision.
Friends are asked to consider several key questions:
a) What do Quakers hold in common?
b) What principles and processes make our work ‘Quaker’ to us and to others?
c) What national structures would enable your Meeting to flourish?
d) What is your five-year vision for your Local Meeting, for Quakers in Britain and for the world?
Friends spent time in the late morning working in small groups exploring the questions from different perspectives. They then reconvened in the George Fox Room.
A Friend said that ‘ministry’ was a key word: ‘What is our ministry as Friends – at Yearly, Area and Local Meeting level and in whatever group we are involved with?’ This approach to the process met with approval in the room.
A fundamental issue to address, a Friend said, was ‘What is the Framework for?’ This must be central to the consultation. Another Friend endorsed this.
A Friend felt that the third question for consideration was ‘not helpful’. It asked what national structures would ‘enable your Meeting to flourish’.
A Friend, who praised the old Framework, wanted to retain the sense of working not with linear but with interlocking structures. He said: ‘Sometimes work can be done at a local level, using partnerships with other Meetings and groups, rather than having to “go through” Friends House’.
‘The original Framework was a truly revolutionary document,’ another Friend agreed. The idea that the work of Friends was done elsewhere – such as at Friends House – was challenged. Friends were prompted and encouraged to take action locally.
It was also very important, a Friend asserted, that Friends in Local and Area Meetings adopt the principles behind the Framework. It was not good enough to say ‘they do it at Friends House’. Friends must take responsibility and engage at a local level.
A Friend felt that the key question to address was: ‘What do we want the world to know of us?’ He mentioned the ‘grim arithmetic’ of the decline in members and stressed that ‘we need the world to know what we are about and what we see as our future’.
A Friend likened the process to going on a journey. He mentioned the phrase: ‘If you do not know where you are going how will you know that you have arrived?’ But he explained that this approach lacked dynamism and buoyancy. He preferred the image of taking steps. He said every step taken changes the landscape and alters the destination.
It was stressed that Friends should ‘identify the underlying principles and ask Friends at all levels to consider how they deliver action based on these principles’.
A Friend said Quakers had been ‘too inward looking’. He felt that ‘our vision is for the twenty-first century’. He praised the concept of ‘servant leadership’ and added that the Quaker way was not that of society. Many in society had a ‘winner takes all attitude’. The Quaker way was one that was collaborative.
In response to the draft minute, a Friend highlighted that, in the session, there was a divergence ‘in our vision’ and that this should be reflected. Should the focus be on the way that we relate to the world outside Quakerism, which was one of looking outwards, or the way we conduct our affairs, which is more akin to ‘navel gazing’?
Contributions to the Framework consultation will need to be received by the end of January 2015. Framework drafts for Meeting for Sufferings can be worked on until the end of March 2015. The final document can be completed by the end of June 2015.
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.