The hurt behind appointments
Michael Wright reflects on his experiences with the Quaker appointments process.
I was pleased to read Roy Stephenson’s guidance to Friends on how to deal with a situation where a nominated name is not accepted by the appointing Meeting (6 November). My name was brought forward five years ago, with another Friend, for a position as a facilitator of the Hearts and Minds study programme. As I used to be a professional trainer, I felt I had something to offer in that role. My name was not found acceptable. The clerk of Monthly Meeting phoned me with the decision: thereafter no one mentioned it. The effect on me was profound. I had not known it happen to anyone else. I was mystified and hurt.
My thoughts were drawn to the issue at every Meeting for Worship I attended for about the next six months, and I came close to withdrawing from the Society of Friends. For three years I declined to allow my name to be brought forward for any Area Meeting appointment. I guessed – and guessed wrongly for years – which Friend had found my name unacceptable.
Five years have passed. I agonised before agreeing a year ago to my name being brought forward to Area Meeting for appointments, but felt ready to test the water. I have been appointed clerk of trustees for my Area Meeting, and an overseer. Now that I have learned which Friend found my name unacceptable and probably why, I live with the experience much more positively. I recently proposed a course of action to some of my fellow overseers for ensuring good pastoral care of any Friend or attender to whom this might happen. They share my concern, and agree to propose to our Area Meeting overseers a pattern of good pastoral care very much along the lines outlined by Roy.
The healing for me is in finding a better way of handling the aftermath of an entirely appropriate Quaker discernment process. I do so hope that overseers in other Area Meetings will reflect on Roy’s article, and seek to implement its wisdom when it is needed.
