Re-thinking Sufferings
Roger Sanderson believes that communication must be a primary function of Meeting for Sufferings
The proposals of the Review Group on Meeting for Sufferings (MfS) and Yearly Meeting (YM) Trustees were presented and accepted at Yearly Meeting Gathering. The most substantial of these were the reduction of MfS from 179 members to 98 and the reduction of representatives from each Area Meeting (AM) from two (or three) to one plus an ‘alternate’ (deputy) (see 12 August, p.10.).
We heard in the presentation of the Review Group’s report that MfS had wholeheartedly supported these recommendations!
MfS was not allowed to even discuss them, at the behest of the Review Group, let alone come to any conclusion, on the grounds that these recommendations were ‘addressed to YM not MfS’. (Informally, some representatives were in favour, some against.)
MfS is described in Quaker faith & practice as the ‘standing representative body’ of Britain Yearly Meeting and that is how one always explains it to enquirers. Yet this phrase was not once referred to in the report, an omission so remarkable that it seems to have been studiously avoided. MfS is the only place where representatives of the membership meet both with each other and representatives of central committees. It is the total interface; a crucial role in maintaining an integrated and cohesive Society. Had the implications of this been fully taken on board, the complexion of the report might well have been different. Among the results would have been recognition of communication as a primary function, not a secondary one.
However, regardless of whether we rate communication as primary or secondary, if it is important at all it needs to be done well. The weakening of representation will inevitably mean two-way communication will be done less well. The onus was put on areas to set up various structures that may partially compensate for the loss, though I still think simplicity would have been best. John Nurse, in his article in the Friend (29 July), also makes a very sound suggestion about how the link with AMs could, in future, be reinforced at the MfS end.
Regarding the size of MfS I do, of course, agree with the speaker when she, perhaps surprisingly, conceded that the size of the Meeting matters much less than the spirit and way in which it goes about its business.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Friends were advised against renaming MfS in the immediate future. However, names can have a subliminal and subconscious influence on our attitudes. ‘Meeting for Sufferings’ is a historical, backward-looking name; ‘sufferings’ in common parlance has passive and depressive connotations. This effect renders MfS all too vulnerable to accepting a reactive role and to scapegoating by others. It takes a lot of explaining to outsiders. The sooner we stop using it the better! A more appropriate name would, in itself, help to focus any further thoughts about its functioning.
So I propose, while the Gathering’s spirit of creative fun lasts, that we have a competition. Everyone thinks of a new name for our central body. It can be positive, imaginative and forward-looking, or just functional and accurate. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Jot your idea down, add your name if you wish, and address it to the recording clerk. He will forward it to – guess who – MfS itself, which will select (discern) the winning entry. Have fun!
Comments
Good article. I agree about the backward-looking” nature of the name. It belongs (only) to our history. What about ‘Representative Meeting’ as an alternative title(as the Meeting is full of representatives)? As for “primary” and “secondary” functions, I’ll just say that my fellow MfS Rep and I strive hard to communicate, in the two directions, between MfS and our AM. David Harries.”
By DavidH on 18th August 2011 - 11:34
It struck me at BYG that a better name for sufferings would be Meeting for Vision. That reflects what is now perceived to be its purpose. Michael Wright
By Michael Wright on 18th August 2011 - 12:36
I’m not sure about Vision. Vision/discernment is a possibility in all Quaker Meetings for Worship for Business. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” I don’t think MfS in particular should have been scapegoated for the Society’s alleged lack of vision. Don’t forget we are (still!) supposed to be a bottom-up society, not top-down. I too was coming round to Representative Meeting/Council. It represents us to the outside world when necessary, it is largely composed of reps. and, not least, it represents all members of the Society from the Shetlands to the Channel Islands (including the big one in between!).”
By Roger Sanderson on 18th August 2011 - 20:33
Please login to add a comment
