Meeting for Sufferings: No unity on attenders joining central committees
‘We are not of one mind.’
Meeting for Suffering (MfS) declined a recommendation from Central Nominations Committee (CNC) that would allow attenders to Quaker Meetings to be appointed to central committees (with the exception of trustees). As a general rule, only members of the Religious Society of Friends can formally take such roles.
In a ‘busy and intense’ session – as Margaret Bryan, clerk of MfS, later described it – Friends shared differing views, which led to the final minute being revised several times, including a reversal of the final decision.
‘We are not of one mind,’ one Quaker said, in response to a proposed minute that accepted the recommendation – the clerks had asked if Friends not in agreement would prefer to ‘stand aside’. After more heartfelt sharing in a session that overran its time slot, the minute was changed to say that the recommendation had not been agreed. Margaret Bryan said that she knew the outcome would be ‘frustrating’ for lots of Friends, since many seemed to be in agreement with the CNC’s original recommendation, but this was ‘part of the process’.
Earlier, Pete Doubtfire and Chloe Scaling, two Friends from the review group appointed to look at central nominations, spoke on the report that made the recommendation. Pete Doubtfire said there was a perception that CNC was struggling to fill some roles ‘but when we spoke to Central Nominations, we found that it wasn’t the case, and they brought [the recommendation] because they wanted to make use of the gifts that attenders might be able to bring.’ There were also occasions when a name had been recommended but it was an attender, who therefore couldn’t take on the role. The group also wanted to increase the diversity of Friends appointed to support central work.
Pete said the review group had sought views with an open questionnaire. It also asked clerks and convenors of central committees for their input, both of which revealed a broad range of opinion. ‘People have strong and heartfelt views,’ he said.
Chloe Scaling said the group did think of specifying criteria for attenders, including knowledge of the Quaker process, but ‘we decided in the end that trusting the nominations committee was the best way forward. We trust they’d ask the right questions and understand [what the roles required]. Pete and I specifically have experience with Young Friends General Meeting (YFGM) where there are always [some] role holders who have membership and [some who] don’t. We’ve had clerks, elders, and trustees of YFGM who have not been members but have done amazing jobs in their roles.’
Excluding the review group, four attenders are currently serving on committees nominated by CNC (two on Quaker Peace & Social Witness Central Committee, and two on the Book of Discipline Revision Committee), but the general rule is that only members can be appointed.
Chloe compared membership to marriage. ‘Just like marriage, membership might be spiritually-important to some people’, she said, whereas others are in equally-committed, long-term, loving relationships but do not need to express that through a marriage certificate.’
When the report was put to the room, Friends revealed mixed feelings. Many seemed in favour of the recommendation, but several Friends didn’t, with one saying they found the recommendations ‘baffling’. ‘What is the meaning of membership?’ one asked, suggesting that allowing attenders to hold these roles undermined the purpose and appeal of membership. ‘In no other body that I can think of – whether it’s a tennis club [or similar] – do the people who take official responsibility do it when they are not members of that body.’
Others said that there is a need to reconsider our understanding of the meaning of membership before such a change is made. One said: ‘I do wonder about taking this step without really getting to grips with that bigger question… How would we explain membership to someone who is thinking of taking it up when we appear to be saying there is no difference between members and attenders.’
Meanwhile, other Friends, as the minute noted, felt that ‘formal membership itself is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for faithful service in our organisation’. Noting there were attenders at Local Meetings who were just as committed and active in their faith as many members, one Friend said: ‘I think Young Friends plainly do their Quakerism really well: why are they not members? I think we are far too fixed on this idea of membership which doesn’t’ even work.’
One Quaker said they were ‘astonished that we are aligning formal membership with the depth of someone’s capacity and ability to serve at a local and national level’. Meanwhile a Friend from the north west said it was ‘important to remember that we are dealing with something we’ve inherited’ and ‘circumstances are different now… We didn’t have membership when the Quaker movement arose’.
Another Friend suggested that CNC might use the phrase ‘a Friend in good standing’ noting that ‘some members aren’t, and some attenders are in very good standing’. Meanwhile a Quaker in the north said: ‘The phrase that has been in my mind is “the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life”.’ Allowing attenders to serve in central appointments ‘is not an expression that membership doesn’t matter but there are different ways of offering service and expressing commitment, and it’s the spirit of that commitment that counts’.
One Quaker dedicated to anti-oppression work urged Friends to think about what the changes meant for encouraging diversity within the community, arguing that the decision disproportionately impacted Young Friends, who are less likely to take up membership. ‘We need a range of voices in our decision making.’
Another Friend said: ‘we must be encouraged to be tender with that range of feeling and acknowledge how deeply friends feel… but for me the recommendation was an opening to see things in a new light… not a question of criticising what came before and saying membership was of no consequence but more of a sense of a continuing revelation and our spiritual understandings are evolving.’
Several others urged Friends to go more slowly and to explore the question of membership more deeply before changing the existing rules. After several revisions, interspersed with eloquent ministry offering a range of opinion, the minute read: ‘Since we have not reached unity but realising the importance of the issue, we ask Meeting for Sufferings Arrangements Group to consider how the matter of membership can return to Meeting for Sufferings for further discernment.’
The review group was laid down, having fulfilled its appointed task.
Comments
Please login to add a comment
