Meeting for Sufferings: QLCC on membership
Max Kirk, from QLCC, described the work of the small group looking at ‘new ways of belonging’.
On Saturday morning Friends heard from a Quaker Life Central Committee (QLCC) group that has been considering how membership works in the Religious Society of Friends. Robert Card, clerk of Meeting for Sufferings, told the sixty-seven Friends in the room, with twenty online, that, almost a year ago, a discernment process across the Yearly Meeting (YM) began with four questions sent to AMs.
‘Today we consider the responses,’ he said. ‘We probably won’t solve the entire matter of membership this morning, but it would be nice if we could find the next step.’
Max Kirk, from QLCC, described the work of the small group looking at ‘new ways of belonging’. The process had revealed ‘a clear need to adapt our current structures to widen and embrace a new style of community… Lots of people can be on the fringe, but feel, or want to feel, a sense of connection with BYM.’ Any new terms should be about ‘more than acknowledging’ but ‘celebrating’, they said. Aiming to be ‘more inclusive, welcoming and modern,’ they said that all the recommendations ‘centre around the need for more flexibility, which might result in something that looks very different, which can be quite daunting’. But none of the suggestions ‘involve dividing us into multiple YMs within Britain’.
The group is still consulting and workshopping ideas, with recommendations soon to follow. Ideas include: allowing membership based on belonging to a Quaker Recognised Body (QRB), or Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM), instead of an AM as is currently the case. This is similar to Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC)’s approach.
Max also highlighted Friends who meet in ways which are not traditionally thought of as worship, such as blended and online worship, or regional residential events for Young Quakers. Some QRBs meet in ways that they might characterise as worship, but don’t conform to the traditional Quaker standard, they said.
Another Friend said that their AM had seen membership as being either about testifying to a ‘spiritual journey’, which many had different opinions on, or a practical necessity for governance and right ordering, which all agreed was vital. One Friend later added that any new system should have ‘an entry point where we check that people understand our testimonies and business methods’.
Friends then moved to breakout rooms. Rich ministry followed with one likening ‘coming into membership as a form of baptism… important to some, but separate from the operational needs of the Society’. Others noted how young Quakers often feel outside the traditional AM structure but ‘part of the Quaker community’, and talked about moving towards ‘inclusive design’ which is ‘completely invisible to people who don’t need special accommodations’. ‘Much of our conversation has been about the individual experience,’ noted one Friend. ‘We need to think what membership means to the Society’. This prompted reflection on membership as a form of reciprocal commitment.
One Friend spoke about membership applications for FWCC, where many are ‘isolated Friends’, and ‘everything we do is remotely’. ‘It’s important to have conversation about what they understand about Quakers’, but, nonetheless, ‘it is possible to be a dispersed community’ with ‘a central point’ and ‘where people feel a sense of belonging’.
‘When I come from a deeply spiritual point of view, I think of the priesthood of all believers and that doesn’t necessitate a distinction between members and attenders,’ said one Friend, while one Quaker likened different roles to the Marx Brothers: ‘All had a place, and were equally valued with different roles, but recognised that the outside world needed to see them as the Marx Brothers.’
Most Friends agreed that membership status ought not be necessary for role-holding, and they trusted the nominations process. This was noted in the minute. A new system might ‘not be best described by the word membership’, it said.
