Membership
Richard Hankins considers membership
I am one of those awkward people who have attended for many years (twelve so far) with no intention of applying for membership to the Religious Society of Friends. In a recent article (9 September) Craig Barnett wrote: ‘Membership provides an opportunity for newcomers to make a deliberate act of commitment to the Quaker community and to assume a full share of responsibility for its governance’. It certainly provides the opportunity, but it does not require it.
In my Meeting we have several members whom we never see at Meeting and who take no part in Quaker affairs (as far as I know). For me, this devalues ‘membership’ to the point where I see no value in it (though I accept the narrow legal requirement under charity law for people taking up certain posts to be ‘in membership’).
Quaker faith & practice (Qf&p) 11.01 is clear enough on the values or spiritual understanding required of a potential member: ‘Membership is also a way of saying to the Meeting, and to the world, that you accept at least the fundamental elements of being a Quaker: 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.’
There was a time when affirming the above values would mark you out as uniquely different from holders of other faiths. That is no longer the case: Quakers now operate in a wide and diverse ‘spiritual marketplace’, where Buddhists, Anthroposophists, Unitarians and many New Age groups are sharing common ground with Quakers. Thus, while affirmation of a set of values is a necessary condition for membership, I suggest it is not sufficient. Qf&p 11.01 is fairly explicit about what membership should be: ‘Membership is a spiritual discipline, a commitment to the wellbeing of one’s spiritual home and not simply appearance on a membership roll.’
The dilemma of someone’s words not matching their actions is a fairly old one. The New Testament has a lot to say on the subject, 1 John 3:18 being a typical example: ‘Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.’ This suggests that the present practice of asking two Friends to assess someone’s suitability for membership in a brief visit is not fit for purpose, when taken in this context. Surely, the people who can best judge the matter are the elders and overseers of the applicant’s Local Meeting, who can observe their words and actions over a long period? (And I suggest a ‘long period’ would be two years minimum.)
Listening to Friends talking about membership, I detect a certain notion that membership confers some sort of spiritual status. Bearing in mind the above observations, I think this is a mistake. It probably explains why Friends are, patently, very reluctant to practice clauses 11.30 through 11.34 of Qf&p, which discuss termination of memberships. Such a termination need not be taken as a statement of someone’s spiritual inadequacy, but rather a simple recognition that they are on a different path than true members of the Society. Membership thus becomes a matter of efficient administration alone – not a comment on someone’s spirituality!
I would offer the following as the essentials of a more meaningful membership process:
1. Allow attenders to apply for membership only after a recommendation is put forward by a Local Meeting to Area Meeting (AM) to the effect that they are already ‘members’ in all but name.
2. Stop the present practice of asking two Friends to work out on the basis of a single visit whether someone is suitable, and replace that with a longer term discernment by the elders and overseers of a Local Meeting.
3. AMs to ask all their existing members annually whether they wish to continue in membership. Those that fail to answer the question should receive some follow-up, but ultimately be removed from the list of members if they are claiming membership for purely sentimental reasons.
Comments
Please login to add a comment
