'What technology might be available and how best to use it. Audio and visual content would undoubtedly play a part.'
Yearly Meeting special interest sessions 1
‘Friends wanted to know in what ways they could best help.’
Before Yearly Meeting (YM) began in earnest, Friends joined various online sessions of preparation or special interest. After a time of technical practice for Zoom users, Woodbrooke ran Supporting online discernment: Centring down and upholding from home. More than fifty Friends joined as Woodbrooke tutor Rhiannon Grant offered help on how they could ‘give themselves the best chance to join in’ with YM in session. Rhiannon talked about Quaker practice, and getting the ‘sense of the Meeting’. This was quite different to a secular idea of consensus, she said, and used Quaker faith & practice to remind those present of the core purpose of such gatherings. Friends had questions about how minutes would be approved, before moving into smaller breakout rooms to discuss some key questions: ‘What helps you settle? What can you do to make it easier on yourself?; How can we support others?’
A session with Friends House Moscow (FHM) was popular, attended by ninety-six Friends.
Mary Morris gave an overview of the complex history of this community of Quakers and how it has changed since the 1980s. They work to: provide Quaker outreach in Russia via translations of books and a website; fund peace work in Russia, Ukraine, and now Estonia; and via projects in Russia for disadvantaged children.
Understandably, this work was ‘turned upside down by the invasion of Ukraine’. The Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP) that had been operating in Ukraine was temporarily suspended, although this is now being restarted. Funds are being channelled to Quaker Central Europe Gathering for humanitarian support for Ukrainian refugees. And, in response to a report in the Friend, they are now providing financial and networking support to AVP in Estonia.
Work in Russia continues but money transfers are problematic because of sanctions, and it is felt that staff at the Moscow office need to keep a low profile at present.
A lively question and answer section followed, asking for more information of specific projects and insight into decision-making, such as how they choose which books to translate. Friends wanted to know in what ways they could best help. Representatives of FHM emphasised that they don’t have any long-term secure sources of funding other than contributions from individuals and Meetings.
Also well attended (almost 100 Friends) was a session from the Book of Discipline Revision Committee: What comes next? Rosie Carnall, co-clerk, talked of how committee members had been tasked with handling the revision ‘prayerfully, joyfully, creatively and boldly’. They were close to being able to show potential new material to the Yearly Meeting, but wanted to share the process as well as the content. This process was challenging, said Catherine Brewer, co-clerk, and the group had begun to struggle with planning and scheduling. It was still joyful, however. It had been an opportunity to look at first principles, rather than merely just revising existing text. A consultant has been appointed to help with project management.
The creative task meant thinking beyond the idea of a printed book, said Rosie. This meant members were having to think into the future, to what technology might be available and how best to use it. Audio and visual content would undoubtedly play a part. For now, the committee was looking at sections on church governance, which were likely to be primarily text-based.
One core issue, said Rachel Muers, was the ‘voice of the book’. She asked Friends to consider how different parts of Qf&p sounded in their heads. Like an authoritative declaration, or someone chatting over a cup of tea? Was that voice young, or old? This would differ by reader, said Rachel, which reinforced the view that the book only makes sense in the context of the people who use it.
After small-group discussion, Friends wanted to know about how to contribute through the online submission tool.
Twenty-eight Friends came together for a session about the RESTORE framework, led by Alistair Fuller, of Quaker Life, and aided by five local development workers.
Alistair described the framework as a lens, a ‘way of coming together’. RESTORE stands for: Recognition, Empathy, Safe together, Trauma, Opportunities, Relationships and reconnection, and Engagement.
To begin to engage with the ‘REST’ aspects, participants went into smaller groups to reflect on two questions: ‘How has the past two years been for you?’ and ‘How has it affected you and your Quaker community?’
Common threads emerged when the whole group came back together; then, after a brief break, Friends were invited to reflect on the ‘ORE’ elements with the questions: ‘How might this framework be helpful to you and your Quaker communities going forward?’ and ‘What are the opportunities to come together and reflect in this way?’
Responses here were less clear-cut, with some Friends wondering if the framework might need external facilitation in cases where relationships are too strained or if Meetings feel a bit ‘fractured’. They asked: ‘When is the right time for this sort of sharing?’
Though seen as an exciting and encouraging tool that could be used from one-to-one situations up to Meeting-wide applications, Friends with experience using it shared that ‘this isn’t a quick fix, not an easy step’.
Yearly Meeting special interest sessions reporting by Alastair Reid, Annique Seddon, Elinor Smallman, Joseph Jones, Laurence Hall, Rebecca Hardy and Sarah FitzGerald.
