No easy answers: appointments and oversight
Roy Stephenson reminds us that individuals in the nominations process require our support
When we consider, and usually appoint, a person to service in Britain Yearly Meeting, our common practice in Friends in Britain is to then leave them to get on with it. This is a practice and a cultural tradition, which I think dates back to the time when most Friends were the children of Friends and membership by convincement was comparatively unusual. In such times this could work, because Friends appointed to service had a ready-made support network in the form of their [extended and often extensive] Quaker families and friends. However, there are probably now more convinced Friends than at any time since the 1670s, and they do not necessarily have an understanding and Quakerly-supportive network about them, which may lead to increased feelings of isolation in the service undertaken on Friends’ behalf. This has wide-ranging implications for the care we offer to those who we consider, and usually appoint, to service on our behalf. We need to change our cultural presuppositions.
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.