Meeting for Sufferings: Non-members in Quaker service
'One Friend agreed that MfS had come to a very clear decision in October, but that there were still what seemed like contradictory responses.'
October’s Meeting for Sufferings (MfS) agreed in principle that appointment to Britain Yearly Meeting’s central committees ‘need not be dependent on formal membership as it currently exists’. Membership was indeed an expression of a ‘reciprocal commitment’, said the minute, but this relationship could exist outside Area Meeting affiliation, within any community that ‘commits to supporting those who participate, and the participating individuals commit to observing the discipline, including education, of the community’. This relationship was a ‘necessary’ one, but ‘may not be best described by the word “membership”.’
Introducing December’s further discernment on the subject, Paul Parker, recording clerk to Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM), said he felt that MfS had reached a ‘joyous clarity’ in October. But now it was time to work through some specific proposals for change. He had three in mind. Firstly, MfS could ask Central Nominations Committee (CNC) to include non-members among the names it brought forward for roles on central committees (this would not include appointment to BYM trusteeship). Second was the matter of non-members taking Local and Area Meeting (AM)roles. This required an amendment to Quaker faith & practice, which was outside MfS’s remit, but representatives could ask the Church Government Advisory Group (CGAG) to prepare materials that would allow Yearly Meeting to make that change. Thirdly, before non-members could be considered for trusteeship, at both national or Area level, governing documents would need to be updated. This was again outside MfS’s remit, but here too it could begin the process with CGAG.
Responding to the proposals, one Friend said she felt that, if the Society was intending to break the link between church government and membership, she would need to hear more about what membership would mean. Another suggested Friends would need an alternative ‘spiritual CV’ to establish their suitability for a role. He wanted to ask those attenders why they had chosen not to be in membership.
Robert Card, clerk to MfS, reminded representatives that they had already agreed in principle to non-members taking roles. This wouldn’t mean ‘grabbing someone off the street’ to put them on a committee – the nominations process would mean proper discernment was still undertaken.
The concern here, said one Friend, was that nominations committees were often themselves too small. They were ‘the most important bodies we have to uphold church governance’. Trusting the nominations process would involve proper maintenance of those committees.
Another said that his struggling Meeting didn’t even have a nominations committee. They had a ‘shrinking gene pool’ yet local members were still wary of appointing inexperienced Friends. It meant that he was on his third triennium as trustee.
A BYM trustee again reminded the Meeting of its October decision. This had expressed ‘real feeling’, she said. The resulting minute hadn’t asked for ‘more things to think about’, but rather how to make the principle real.
One Friend agreed that MfS had come to a very clear decision in October, but that there were still what seemed like contradictory responses. He hadn’t heard clarity on how to proceed with non-members taking roles at AM level. Changing Quaker faith & practice was of particular concern, he said. Membership might not be necessary, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t good practice.
Another Friend, who had previously been involved in a nominations team, had asked to be released from that service. Instead he wanted to focus on what he thought was the real problem driving this change: the shortage of Quakers. AMs were already ignoring the membership requirement, he said, but trusteeship ought to be a different matter. It would be very unusual for any organisation to give up the formal affiliation of its executive directors.
The clerk suggested a minute that did ask CNC to include non-members in its discernments, but moved more slowly on changes at AM/LM level.
One representative worried that this latter part ‘makes us sound foolish’, however. ‘The horse has bolted’, he said. The Meeting had already heard how AMs and LMs were ignoring the membership requirement.
Maybe MfS would have to accept that it sounded foolish, said the clerk. This was at least a way forward. In the absence of unity around changes to Quaker faith & practice, CGAG was asked to prepare materials for further MfS discernment on what those changes might be.
The end to this part of the discernment might have seemed flat to some, but the minute nevertheless included significant and consequential change: non-members will now be considered for central committee roles.
Comments
Please login to add a comment
