Preparing for discernment at Yearly Meeting Gathering in York, 2009. Photo: Fran Lane
Understanding discernment
There are some aspects of the YMG theme where Friends have widely different understandings that they care about with a depth of passion. With this in mind, Martin Ward explores the Quaker understanding of discernment
We can go into a room with a dozen assorted Friends, or several hundred, and come out with the will of God written on a piece of paper. Put that bluntly, our claim may seem preposterous. But in more cautious language, with caveats, it is a claim that lies at the heart of one of the distinctive features of Quaker practice. As one of many Friends who has had the job, as a clerk, of doing the writing on the piece of paper, I have found the claim borne out time and time again in my experience of our ‘general meetings’ (using ‘general meeting’ not just for the regional layer in our hierarchy, but with the original sense of meetings open to all members: our Local and Area Meetings, and our Yearly Meeting.)
The word ‘discernment’ is often used to describe our practice for reaching decisions. In Quaker faith & practice it occurs in the context of ‘discerning’ God’s guidance, and ‘discerning’ the unity of the Meeting. Dictionary examples of usage have helpful implications. There is a sense that we do not see the way forward clearly – we may be peering through a fog at outlines, shapes and pathways which we do not fully comprehend. So our perception is imperfect and provisional. Discernment, also, requires effort, discipline, and experience on the part of the discerners. It cannot be achieved by a casual, uninformed, glance. Ultimately, discernment enables us to distinguish between a right and wrong course of action that can bring us to a decision.
Our Meetings delegate a lot to small groups: committees, nominating groups, trustees and staff. These can be efficient and effective at managing projects, budgets, resources, and enterprises. For over three hundred years we have been appointing named trustees to look after money and report back to a later meeting on how it has been disbursed; but it is the discernment in the gathered general meeting of all available members, that is so distinctive and makes us a Religious Society, rather than a charity, or a network of worshipping groups.
I would like to suggest that we nourish our capacity for such discernment in three ways. Firstly, by reading and re-reading the guidance. There is a wealth of wisdom in chapter three of Quaker faith & practice, based on long experience of what works, and what can go wrong because of the human frailties which we bring to any exercise of power. Visible activity in a session may be mostly at the table, but it is the discipline of all present that achieves results in the form of an agreed minute. It is hard to pick out individual elements, but when difficult and emotive subjects have been set before Yearly Meeting, I have found it particularly helpful that Friends have spoken briefly, enabling many to be heard, that we have spoken from experience rather than from theory, and that we have listened with open minds, willing to be led past our preconceived positions.
Secondly, we need, somehow, to keep in practice, especially when it is only occasionally that strategic decisions are needed. This means recognising when we are taking decisions. Some of the most difficult sessions to minute are those with an introduction followed by three contributions – enough to open a subject up, but not enough to get any sense of the Meeting. It has been helpful to work with the Meeting in session to discern which items can be taken briefly on draft minute alone, and which need fuller consideration. In allowing the possibility of the Meeting saying ‘no’, or ‘yes but’, we make the Meeting’s assent to other routine items meaningful. We also exercise our discernment in considering wider issues in the world, where the key decisions are not ours to make and we cannot expect to have all the answers, but on which we may have something important to say to one another and, in proportion with our experience, to the outside world.
Finally, we should trust the process of discernment, and recognise that we have a tendency not to do so; that we can become sceptical from experience of lobbying, tactical ministry, and other lapses of discipline, not common but not unknown; that we can get frustrated at slow progress, and anxious at setting complex issues before an inexpert assembly. The origin of our national gathering lies in a time when the unqualified were seizing a share of power in this country. Unlike other political movements and sects of the time, our Religious Society is still around 350 years later. This long experience bears witness to our claim that discernment in our meetings is not only gloriously unpredictable, but that it also works.
