Adwoa Burnley, speaking to Yearly Meeting in 2022
Yearly Meeting 2023 Preparatory sessions
‘“Making time for prayerful discernment” was the main aim for the agenda.’
A series of online theme preparation sessions were run between 19 and 23 April to help Friends get ready for Yearly Meeting (YM) 2023. Its theme is ‘Releasing our energy so that we can follow the leadings of the spirit, fulfil our purpose and build a better world’. YM in session will address three questions regarding decision-making and potential structural change (see page 20 of Agenda & notes).
Welcome
Yearly Meeting Agenda Committee (YMAC) organised a welcome session on 22 April, which saw nearly sixty Friends gather. Adwoa Burnley, nominated to serve as YM clerk for 2023, drew Friends’ attention to the theme and encouraged all to scrutinise the Documents in Advance (which can be found at www.quaker.org.uk/ym/documents). She shared that ‘making time for prayerful discernment’ was the main aim for the agenda.
Introductions to the clerking team, the recording clerk, Yearly Meeting eldership convenors, and the convenor of the Yearly Meeting pastoral care team took place, as did a reminder of some practicalities in relation to participating online.
Adwoa also explained that an additional social space will be provided for online participants during the weekend of the 28 April to 1 May. Friends attending online will have an opportunity to have lunch and chat between the morning and afternoon sessions.
Who is making decisions? An exploration of the structures of Britain Yearly Meeting
This was the only preparation session to be held multiple times. Intended to ensure Friends were well prepared for the forthcoming consideration of Quaker structures, it sought to shed light on how YM is organised.
On 19 April, nearly sixty Friends attended the first of these sessions, which were led by Simon Best, the head of programmes and partnerships for Woodbrooke, and organised by YMAC.
Starting with the individual Quaker, then working through the various components of the structure of Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) as a whole, Simon described the role and function of each, and how they relate to each other.
Friends heard about Local Meetings (LMs), Area Meetings (AMs), General Meetings (GMs), Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM), Meeting for Sufferings (MfS), BYM trustees, central and standing committees, management meeting, and staff.
Simon went on to talk about groups that sit outside the formal structure but form part of the wider Quaker community, such as Quaker Recognised Bodies and organisations like the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO), the Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA), the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC) and Woodbrooke.
Friends were then guided through the path of a decision, using the example of the term ‘overseer’. The process began with a minute from Barnsley LM in 2018 and, by the end of 2022, had led to a decision by Sufferings to ask AMs to stop using the term.
Questions ranged from clarification around charitable status, the relationships between bodies, and the size of committees, to wondering what would happen if a recommendation by MfS to AMs were refused, and highlighting the importance of the Central Nominations Committee.
Simon recommended that Friends watch a series of videos that have been prepared. On the Documents in Advance page two can be found one about BYM structures and another exploring MfS in greater detail. A third video describing four of the central committees and their work can be found on YouTube (https://bit.ly/4committees).
Looking at central committees
In this session, BYM trustees, who have been exploring the question of whether the current structure works for the whole Quaker community, shared their thoughts with over seventy Friends.
Alison Mitchell, of YMAC, introduced the session and spoke of the importance of safe, welcoming and spiritual structures to enable Friends to live out their faith.
Peter Grant, also of YMAC, introduced the work that trustees have been undertaking. He clarified that the discernment before YM was about whether the time was right for change, but that Friends were not being asked to approve a model of what that change might look like. If Friends discern the time is right, a model might come to YM 2024 for consideration.
A small group of trustees have been exploring this question with Friends around the country and shared what they have learned.
Kate Gulliver described the origins of BYM’s structures, in the very early days of the Society, when they played a role in ensuring Quakers survived while other radical groups disappeared. She also read from Quaker faith & practice 8.24 and 8.18 to emphasise how evolution of the Society’s structures has also taken place over time, ‘to ensure our structures meet our current needs’.
When the strategic priorities for BYM were agreed in 2018, which included ‘simple structures’ as an aim, trustees started to look at central committees to identify opportunities for simplification.
Carolyn Hayman took Friends through the elements they focussed on, with a view towards simpler, more inclusive and sustainable central structures. She explored what each of these elements meant, for example ‘simpler’ was defined as the ‘necessary minimum allocation of time and resources to enable Friends to discern how their church should provide spiritual nurture and impact on the world’, as well as ensuring that ‘each part of the governance system is understandable by any Friend, and the responsibilities of the different parts of the system connect, but don’t overlap’.
Ellie Harding described the problems and suggested some solutions. She emphasised the need for transparency and clarity in decision-making, and the need to consider flexible opportunities that are more compatible with current ways of working.
She pointed out: ‘When we think about sustainability, we don’t have the membership numbers to fill all the roles we’ve been doing… If our structure is to be sustainable, [central committees] also need to be fun. We definitely should not underestimate this. If people are giving up time it needs to be about the joy of service, rather than the burden of service, and enable a way that people can take this energy back to their Local Meetings.’
Friends were able to ask questions and offer comments. They spoke of: the importance of balancing inclusion and boundaries, having a strong discipline around discernment, knowing where informal processes tip into needing a formal nominations process, clear accountability, and that lessons needed to be learned from the recent ‘radical restructuring’ in and around Quaker Peace & Social Witness Central Committee (QPSWCC).
In worship sharing one Friend said YM needs to be careful not to equate sorting out structures with sorting out ‘all our problems’. They highlighted a lack of understanding of Quaker Business Method and a lack of acceptance of decisions reached during a Meeting for Worship for Business.
As the session came to a close a Friend spoke of how structures ‘should support us and not be something we’re beholden to’. They continued, ‘we should be dancing around them, swinging from them… [Structure] should not define us, we should define the structure’.
Looking at Meeting for Sufferings
Eighty Friends attended this opportunity to hear from Caroline Nursey, clerk of BYM trustees, and Margaret Bryan, a recent clerk of MfS.
Friends were reminded of Qf&p 8.02, which says that YM in session is the final constitutional authority of Friends. It relies on delegation to MfS and trustees to move work forward. Both bodies have a relationship with YM, but their relationship to each other was less clear, and in 2021 YM asked for a review.
Of the relationship, Margaret Bryan said ‘it’s been interesting… sometimes it’s complicated’ and that at times it has felt like things worked in spite of the structures rather than because of them. Caroline said trustees had had very sound guidance from MfS, but that it was not always clear what authority was held and what that relationship ‘truly needs to be’.
When asked what happens at MfS, Margaret spoke of the receipt of minutes, and especially of how, when YM reaches a significant decision, it is the beginning of a process that Sufferings takes forward.
Caroline used the example of local development workers (LDWs). She described a long period of discernment – including trustees, MfS, YM, and Quaker Life Central Committee, going back to 2010 and including a three-and-a-half-year pilot project. The discernment from Sufferings was ‘enriching our own thinking and giving us confidence that that was the way forward’, but after a change in representatives at the end of a triennium, suddenly there was a feeling of ‘What are trustees doing? Is this the right thing?’
This continuity issue happens ‘frequently enough for us to notice’, agreed Margaret, whether due to trienniums or because a representative and alternate attend different Meetings. She reminded Friends that ‘we do have to trust the process, we have to trust each other, and trust the fact that Sufferings when it met and trustees when they met… are Meeting in Worship in the way of Friends’.
In breakout rooms Friends discussed whether there was a need for: making the divide between MfS and trustees clearer but keeping them side by side in the structure; making trustees superior to MfS so Sufferings becomes a consultative body; or making MfS superior to trustees – this could also include making MfS open to all Friends and functioning like a Yearly Meeting continuation.
In the plenary, Friends shared excitement and caution. Most groups appeared to have spent time with the third option, but others wanted to know more about the extent of friction before deciding to make a significant change.
Truth and integrity: why, what, how?
Session four of YM will focus on truth and integrity, launching a year of discernment for the Quaker community.
The Quaker Truth and Integrity Group (QTIG) hosted this preparation session on 23 April, to help Friends engage with its work, and the world of politics and decision-making.
Over 120 Friends heard from members of the group – Gerald Hewitson (clerk), Jan Arriens, and Martina Weitsch – and had two opportunities in breakout rooms to reflect on what was said.
Gerald began with ‘why?’
He spoke about integrity in public life, the Nolan Principles, and how ‘in the UK we can be very grateful that we live in a society where these qualities are quite visible… many people across the world live lives blighted by endemic bribery and corruption’. However, with recent investigations at the highest levels of government, a quote from Emily Maitlis resonated: ‘Things that once would have shocked us now seem commonplace.’ He explained that QTIG is not party political, but is ‘unashamedly political’.
QTIG formed after a challenge was posed in a letter to the Friend in 2016: ‘Friends have always placed a high value on truth and fairness. Is it time for Quakers to take an active public stance on this issue?’
Now a Quaker Recognised Body, the group recognises Friends’ historic ties to truth, but also sees a Quaker responsibility to ‘move the discussion to kinder ground’.
Gerald described some of the challenges that the group is facing, and the need to diffuse what can be done to a regional and local level.
Jan Arriens spoke about ‘what’.
He acknowledged that QTIG is ‘a small body with an enormous task before us… Our concern is to do what we can to bring truth and integrity back to centre stage in the public discourse’.
Visibly, the group has a website (www.quakertruth.org) and has launched the Quaker Truth and Integrity Award to recognise a person or body that has made ‘exceptional contribution towards enhancement of truth and integrity in public life’. Members are exploring further activities, such as webinars, podcasts, and an all-faith conference.
Less visibly, the main programme of work involves writing letters to individuals commending exceptional instances of good practice: ‘praise rather than criticism tends to be much rarer’. Members are reaching out to others in this field, to provide speakers, and are working to establish a sound administrative base.
Martina Weitsch spoke about the ‘how’.
She explored how Friends can get involved individually and by banding together to act as LMs and AMs to build meaningful relationships with decision makers.
An opportunity for comments in the final minutes of the session saw Friends share enthusiasm and motivation. One Friend said they came to the session out of a sense of duty, but were leaving feeling ‘better informed, and I feel that I would like to take some action, no matter how small, to further this work’.
Next week: A comprehensive round-up of Yearly Meeting in session, plus our usual coverage of Special Interest Groups.
