Chess players gathering in the courtyard at Friends House. Photo: The Friend.
Meeting for Sufferings: October morning session
New ways of belonging, Britain Yearly Meeting trustees' report, and reviewing central structures
Changing rooms
Friends who made it to Euston for this October session found themselves in a different space to usual – the recently redecorated Benjamin Lay room. The Light had been hired by the Tech Mahindra Global Chess League, and Friends House was full of people hunched over game boards – the world’s best players, in fact, including world number one, Magnus Carlsen. It gave clerk Robert Card a chance to point out that, if representatives thought MfS’s rules on mobile phones were strict, they should try taking a call downstairs!
The day began with worship. But the early mood was sombre, as a statement on Israel/Palestine was read, ahead of the anniversary of the October 7 attacks. It was a ‘dark milestone’ said Oliver Robertson, head of witnesss and worship. ‘The voices that matter, that we should listen hardest to hear, are those living most profoundly with the consequences of that day… For Quakers, there are times for words and times for silence. At this time of pain, let our mouths be silent.’
This was followed by a reading from Quaker faith & practice 24.06, a passage issued by London Yearly Meeting during the Napoleonic Wars: ‘And we can serve our country in no way more availingly, nor more acceptably to him who holds its prosperity at his disposal, than by contributing, all that in us lies, to increase the number of meek, humble, and self-denying Christians.’
In the extended stillness, there was no further ministry.
New ways of belonging
This was the start of what would usually be called a new triennium (since representatives are appointed for three-year stints), but with Yearly Meeting having decided to replace MfS with a new ‘continuing Yearly Meeting’, this term would not last that long. But of course the business of appointments had to carry on, and Elizabeth Clerk, assistant clerk, dealt with this swiftly. Approving Discovering Quakers, the newish outreach body, as a Quaker Recognised Body (QRB), and renewing The Retreat, was also done on draft minute.
The Meeting then heard from Harry Albright, of Quaker Life Central Committee (QLCC), who brought a paper on ‘New ways of belonging’. QLCC has for some time held a concern that Quaker membership structures might need to change, to accommodate ‘the changing nature of belonging and community within Britain Yearly Meeting [BYM].’ These changes had been accelerated by the Covid pandemic, and the growth of online Meetings. A working group was set up to look at ways to fully include people who are not able to become members due to the current Area Meeting system, which is geographic. It also looked at ways of encouraging models of worship and community that were ‘identifiably Quaker, but do not look like most existing Quaker worshipping communities’.
The group had been ‘bold and creative in the ideas we considered’, said Harry, and ‘did not shy away from looking at radical possibilities, for example abolishing formal membership altogether’. They eventually settled on one recommendation, which was then endorsed by QLCC. Under this proposal, recognised groups within BYM would be authorised to grant formal membership to ‘those whose connection to Friends is through their belonging to those groups. These could be existing groups, like Woodbrooke, Young Friends General Meeting (YFGM), or QRBs, as well as a new non-geographic “Area” Meeting that could be set up for those whose lifestyle is peripatetic or who feel a different kind of connection with Friends, e.g. through an online meeting for worship.’
Further work would be needed on the relevant procedures and requirements, particularly in terms of accountability and safeguarding, Harry went on, but ‘the proposals before you today are a long-awaited first step towards becoming a more inclusive community, and affirming the sense of belonging of those who call themselves Friends, no matter what their attachment to Quakers may be.’
Friends began their discernment. One welcomed the idea of an ‘Area’ Meeting that was not based on geography, but wondered if the wider ideas came more from, ‘desire’ than ‘reality’: the proposal ‘poses more questions than answers’, she said.
Another reminded representatives that BYM was already a ‘federated’ organisation through the Area Meeting (AM) system. Creating a non-geographic AM might be a good idea, but these organisations were, effectively, churches, whereas QRBs were interest groups of variable governance – ‘and BYM’s governance of them is nonexistent’.
This was precisely an opportunity to ‘re-imagine what we are as a church’ said Harry, responding. The proposal was not that all existing QRBs, as they are currently formulated, be allowed to grant membership. It was instead a chance to re-invent what QRBs could be, and to look again at both their internal governance and how they were governed by BYM.
One young Friend pointed out that YFGM was a General Meeting, not a QRB, and that it already granted membership on the basis of attendance. A non-geographic Meeting would be very valuable to young Friends, who were very mobile.
Elizabeth wondered whether Friends were ready to endorse the proposal. ‘With joy’, said one Friend, whose affiliation with Friends had come through the summer schools rather than a Local Meeting. Another said that it wasn’t the organisation that matters, but whether a person had ‘the same spiritual leaning as the rest of us’.
One Friend, from Central Nominations Committee, said he hoped that face-to-face meetings would still be part of any membership process: ‘Support from people who know them and have met them’ was important, he said.
There followed some to-and-fro on how best to render the minute, to make sure that it was not granting existing QRBs the right to approve membership. But all this talk was becoming ‘negative’, said one BYM trustee. ‘The current system serves the people in this room,’ she said. What they were talking about was a positive thing: how to include people who identify as Quaker but don’t fit into the current system. The discernment was taking longer than expected but, eventually, to some relief, and even a smattering of applause, the recommendation was approved.
Trustees’ report
After a shuffle break, Marisa Johnson, clerk to BYM trustees, gave her report. She first reminded Friends of her roles at Local and Area level, demonstrating that trustees are active across the Yearly Meeting. ‘Any one of you’ could be appointed as a trustee, she remarked, heading off any concerns that trustees form some exceptional layer of governance. ‘Accountability and transparency are very important to us’, she said, referencing the constant turnover of trustees, but also the considerable number of minutes – four sets – that representatives had been sent in their preparation documents: ‘I’m sure you won’t thank us for that.’
Marisa then turned to Woodbrooke. She recognised that many Friends were ‘still in grief’ about the closure of the Quaker study centre building, but the fact that there was still so much going on was ‘encouraging’.
Then she addressed potential further changes to central structures, particularly central committees. These could do with greater flexibility, she said. Could there be just one planning committee, rather than separate ones for Quaker Life and Quaker Peace & Social Witness? Scotland and Wales were showing how new structures could be made to work, and might have lessons to offer. She knew that some AMs were currently under ‘great stress’ when it came to filling roles.
Finances are part of trustees’ remit, and Marisa addressed these in simple fashion. BYM had an operating loss last year, and ‘The bottom line is, if you want us to do more work, please send us more money’.
The message was endorsed by Paul Whitehouse, treasurer. He thought every Friend who benefited from the Society should be willing to contribute.
Reviewing central structures
Margaret Bryan, convenor of the working group on reviewing BYM’s central structures, then offered a report on the group’s work. After many workshops and discussions, and guidance from YM, the group was moving towards a new proposal, she said, namely for one single central committee (as had been suggested by Marisa in her report). But they were not there yet. Right now was a period of testing, and consultation with the wider community of Friends. ‘Have we missed anything?’, she wanted to know – but she needed answers soon: the consultation with Friends would end in two weeks. Thereafter recommendations would be passed to trustees, then on to Yearly Meeting Agenda Committee, and finally to Yearly Meeting 2025. (To comment on the consultation document (available at www.quaker.org.uk/documents/grcs-consultation-doc---to-share), email governance @quaker.org.uk.)
Friends wanted to know more about how resources would be shared, the effect on head staff, and the expected relationship between the committee and BYM trustees. It would allow for more devolution, said Marisa.
Robert thanked Margaret for the report, and encouraged Friends to participate in the consultation.
Next week: afternoon session. See www.quaker.org.uk/mfspapers.
Comments
New Ways of Belonging.
The proposal is that recognised groups within BYM would be able to authorised to grant formal membership to those whose connection with Friends is through belonging to those groups. At present the usual route into membership is through application to the Friend’s Area Meeting. There is then a process of discernment, which involves elders of the Friend’s local meeting expressing a view as to whether they support the application. Two Friends would then normally be appointed to visit the applicant to discuss their reasons for wanting to join the Religious Society of Friends. The Area Meeting would then consider the report of the visit with a view to discerning whether Quakerism really is the applicants appropriate spiritual home.
The process of discernment should, I suggest, be grounded in the guidance set out in Quaker faith and practice (11.01) which states (in part) that membership is “a way of saying to the meeting that you accept at least the fundamental elements of being a Quaker”. These are listed as “the understanding of divine guidance, the manner of corporate worship and the ordering of the meeting’s business, the practical expression of inward convictions and the equality of all before God”.
How is the process of discernment set out above going to be facilitated under the new proposals, which seem to be based on the assumption that participation in a recognised group is sufficient to justify the granting of membership irrespective of whether applicant has any understanding of or commitment to the fundamental elements of Quakerism?
By Richard Pashley on 10th October 2024 - 9:17
Please login to add a comment
