‘If everything in our local meetings is welcoming, dynamic, friendly and joyful then why are we not growing?’ Photo: by Melissa Askew on Unsplash.
‘Yes we claim to be friendly, nice people. But these dynamics are more subtle than that.’
Body building: Derrick Whitehouse says Friends should give some thought to how groups work
I recently gave a presentation on Quaker Meeting houses. When researching it I discovered that there were many more than I expected, dating back to when, in some parts of the country, it is said that ten per cent of the population worshipped as Friends of Truth. I have read that when the Wesleys came along allegiance slipped away, towards the more open hymn-singing approach. But I am not convinced that this is the whole story about our numerical decline. In brief, I am persuaded the loss was about poor, ineffective management.
We are told that the Quaker way was a strict discipline, which may have accounted for some people going elsewhere. This strict approach endured until the Manchester Conference of 1895, when ‘liberal’ Quakerism was initiated. But membership has continued over subsequent years to steadily fall. When I joined Friends, over sixty years ago, there were around 25,000 of us; sadly membership has continued to decrease and is now fewer than 13,000.
A few years ago Harvey Gilman wrote an article in which he remarked that enquirers go to Quaker events at Charney Manor and come away enthused, only to find that their local Meeting culture does not measure up to their expectations. Another suggestion came from Alastair Heron who worried that we are becoming a Social Society of Friends rather than a Religious one. My own doctoral research, into congregational cultures and spiritual nurture in Quaker Meetings, suggested that there are five revealing styles describing how meetings function. These are ‘vibrant’, ‘sanguine’, ’pedestrian’, ‘restricted’ and ‘depressed’. I am prepared to suggest that these descriptions of functional styles have always been there. This is because of the varying management approaches that Friends take in their local meetings. But the curious thing is that almost every local meeting tells me that they are vibrant, and there is no need for change.
I believe an understanding of group dynamics can lead to some hard truths about why local meetings either function well or steadily fail. We all know stories of how a local meeting was down to only one or two people and then a family with young children moved in and over time the meeting flourished. Great. But this is more serious than that; it is about poor management and lack of social skills. In my own extensive travels around Meetings I have found congregations where there is no one there to welcome visitors, or, afterwards, Friends gravitate towards each other or simply stand around not knowing how to approach any newcomer.
I have concluded that the right way to build a foundation for growth and development is to have an effective group dynamic strategy. This strategy must be understood and trusted by everyone involved. In many of our local meetings there is a significant group dynamic that has emerged over time. At best this dynamic is open and welcoming, leading to functional vibrancy. But because of human nature people unconsciously make judgements when meeting someone new. This is likely to be about whether someone is ‘my type’, or whether they will fit in comfortably to the local meeting culture. This is involuntary human nature, and built into our routine functional behaviour. This type of internal dialogue, along with unconscious gestures, will lead a newcomer to feel either at home or that the meeting isn’t for them. In Meetings where people try hard to make newcomers feel welcome, sometimes the group dynamic is not palpable and the newcomer will be lost. In bigger Meetings there can be a range and variation of groups. If a newcomer hits on one that feels right then they stay. But this is not always possible in a small meeting, which might have a group of Friends who are set in their ways, with limited social skills.
To try to embrace the whole vista of group dynamics is difficult in one article. But what can be said is that groups form and people strive, probably unconsciously, to be an integral part of a group. The members of a group take on varied roles, even if it is that of a follower. At least then one feels that one belongs. I recommend that you do some research into these dynamics online. To my knowledge, Friends have not made much reference to how groups function and behave. This is especially true when it comes to wondering why we are not growing and developing numerically. We are not like other churches, which might have built-in group dynamics like singing as a corporate activity, with everyone feeling involved from the start. With Quakers it is about fitting in to a group where the boundaries and functionality are difficult to discern. Yes we claim to be friendly, nice people. But these dynamics are more subtle than that and frequently our Quaker way is not obvious to the newcomer when they are considering those generated by the Meeting.
I know there will be Friends who will say that their Meetings are not like that. But if everything in our local meetings is welcoming, dynamic, friendly and joyful then why are we not growing? There are those who say progress will come through our young people. This may be helpful but we know in our heart of hearts it is more than that. Are we still nearly all middle class intellectuals, not good at embracing people who are different from us? And right now, will the pandemic make a difference to our Quaker dynamic and cultures, with the introduction of Zoom Meetings for worship?
We need to think seriously about acting on the group dynamic needs of each of our local Meetings. We must consider how they can be understood and then prayerfully implemented. I believe it requires only a basic identification with how groups work. This would lead to us understanding and relating to our community effectively, with a functional style that embraces everybody’s needs. It is not that we should become more ‘happy clappy’. We are different, with a functional style that, at its best, can appeal to many Friends. But we need to extend that to enquirers, perhaps those who have been to Charney and elsewhere, but alas not found our local and even area meetings measuring up to their expectations. These visitors once had the desire to become integral participants in our beloved Religious Society, and it is so sad if that does not come about.
Comments
I found the article very interesting. I’m a new member yet already saddened by falling numbers. I’m hoping that Derricks article helps us be more vigilant , keeping existing members & attracting new comers.
By Ralph Wallin on 13th August 2020 - 14:50
I have attended two different meetings and always found the people friendly and welcoming. However, I am saddened by the lack of social, ethnic and age diversity. I am getting older and don’t really want to only see people just like me in meeting!
By nyinmodelek@btinternet.com on 14th August 2020 - 15:21
A very interesting article but I am not convinced that the main way to address falling numbers is to have a group dynamic strategy. I think the problem is a lack of clarity and unity as to what it means to be a Quaker. I think the theist / non theist split is a part of this.
By James Priestman on 16th August 2020 - 21:37
Please login to add a comment
