Meeting for Sufferings: Review of Meeting for Sufferings
One of the core proposals is that MfS becomes a ‘continuing YM’.
The afternoon was devoted to reports from the Group to Review Yearly Meeting, Yearly Meeting Gathering and Meeting for Sufferings (GRYYM).
The session began with consideration of GRYYM’s ‘Stage Two’ report, concerning the review of MfS.
Ann Kerr, one of the co-convenors of GRYYM, gave an overview of the group’s work, which began in 2019 when MfS set up a group to review Yearly Meeting (YM) and Yearly Meeting Gatherings (YMGs). A review of MfS was added to the group’s remit in March 2022.
Ann described the report as being the ‘bigger and fuller’ of the two before the Meeting, as befitted ‘the most substantive change we’re recommending’. She emphasised the ‘difficult balancing act’ of thinking through and describing potential avenues enough so that an informed discernment could be made, without going so far down any one path that Friends feel that discernment has already been made.
The paper was put before the Meeting, with all members of GRYYM in attendance to answer questions.
One of the core proposals is that MfS becomes a ‘continuing YM’. Currently YM is held annually and MfS meets four times. The proposals suggest four meetings of YM in continuation – one of which would resemble the annual YM, spanning several days, with three additional sessions throughout the year.
A Welsh Friend expressed happiness with the proposals, along with a ‘little bit of trepidation’. They said that they had watched the ‘difficulties about the triangle between YM, MfS and BYM trustees’ and could see that the triangle wasn’t working well: ‘So I think we ought to go forward in faith.’
Caution and concern was expressed by another Friend, beginning with the provision of time for discernment as a worshipping community: ‘One of the most important things about being Quakers together is that we are together, wrestling to find the will of God… the more often we do that and the more depth we can give to our considerations, the better. And the more of us who are party to these decisions the better… But in these proposals we are actually proposing that there is less time than at present devoted by people who are not trustees… My hope was that we would be meeting more often, to take more responsibility.’
Ann Kerr said that the time given to sessions can be flexible ‘to meet the needs of the agenda’. She also highlighted how experimentation during the pandemic had added valuable tools, like the preparation sessions, to MfS. ‘The time thing is as elastic as we wish to make it and is practicable.’
More mixed feelings and reservations were heard. One representative reported conversations they’d had within their Area Meeting. A recurring comment was that if the opportunities to gather in discernment were reduced to four, including YM, ‘we are not really fully participating, as a Society, in the work of discernment’. They said that there was a ‘palpable sense of sadness’.
The same Friend urged that, as the mitigations described in the risk management section of the report are things that should be done anyway, why not start with them, ‘without the huge upheaval and huge expense of a major restructuring’.
Ann Kerr agreed: ‘Yes… we should be doing the mitigation things now!’ She pointed to several recommendations that could be introduced immediately to help things run more smoothly.
Another Friend had noticed ‘there is a “type” that gets nominated for Sufferings’, generally people who have been at Local and Area Meetings (AMs) for some time and already had roles. But some Friends’ faith isn’t expressed in participation at AM level. ‘We’re already here,’ they said. ‘It’s the people who aren’t here that need to be part of the discernment… So how do we bring those into the discernment?’
Other Friends raised queries relating to younger Friends, such as: the impact on Junior Yearly Meeting; how the flexibility might help if the school year changes; and the feasibility of offering children and young people’s programmes alongside every YM in continuation session.
A member of GRYYM spoke of the enthusiasm of the staff in the children and young people’s programme, who ‘see great opportunities’
Another Friend, also a BYM trustee, said they were ‘perplexed when Friends want fewer Friends to do discernment’. They said: ‘What Sufferings stands to gain, is that discernment that is not currently in this room.’ While they understood ‘the trepidation over practical arrangements… we will only learn what works and what doesn’t when we experiment with that… we aren’t losing anything but we will gain so much’.
A focus on using the mitigations from the report was agreed upon by several other pieces of ministry. With one Friend commenting that the list of things that are wrong are problems across the Society, not just MfS: ‘Changing the structures might not be the solution.’
Another Friend added: ‘One thing that I would also welcome is the fact that the name Meeting for Sufferings, which has been largely nonsensical for 300 years, would finally be buried… I would like to remind us that we’re not setting something in stone for the next 300 years or so… [it’s] just an experiment for now.’
Friends also reflected on their experience of MfS, as moving forward with the proposals would effectively lay MfS down. One said that being asked to serve in this way ‘was a great privilege for me… I’ve learned so much… I do regret the passing of it’.
Another Friend said: ‘I’ve been absolutely privileged to represent our Area Meeting at Meeting for Sufferings.’ They added that: ‘The one comfort in this document that I feel quite strongly about is there should be a continued responsibility for someone to represent the Area Meeting and feedback.’
One representative urged: ‘We need to live adventurously, but let’s make sure we review it after a certain fixed time… say, five years from implementation?’
The BYM treasurer emphasised that if more Meetings were desired in the new proposals there would be cost implications. ‘Please Friends would you go back to your Meetings and remind them of the need to give more to Britain Yearly Meeting if you want us to spend more money on your behalf.’
Another representative drew Friends’ attention to the fact that other Yearly Meetings have a ‘continuing Yearly Meeting’ model already, and that BYM could benefit from their learnings.
As discernment on the minute itself progressed, there was a consciousness that this minute would be one of record, and needed to explain the decision to future Friends.
One Friend asked that two elements from the group’s report be included to articulate the core ‘why’. Namely the passages that read: ‘At the heart of this proposal is our belief that ‘it will strengthen spirit-led discernment within our Religious Society’ and ‘by bringing both bodies together in a single continuing Yearly Meeting we can reduce duplication and increase accountability and participation’.
The final minute recorded that: ‘We welcome the proposals, although some reservations have been expressed… We agree to endorse these proposals and send the report to Yearly Meeting for its discernment in July. We note that if adopted, this would mean the laying down at the venerable institution of Meeting for Sufferings, which is a sadness for many.’
