Renewal
I agree with the other Friends who have previously written to the Friend to support the idea that young Friends should be deeply involved in discerning the way forward for our Religious Society of Friends. Why are they not central to envisaging how we can evolve and change our structures to answer the challenges we face?
Discerning the way ahead needs people who are able to look with fresh eyes at the world that we now live in and be inspired by what they see and have experienced. Young Friends inevitably see and think differently from older Friends as they grew up in radically different times. They are part of this new era.
Older people think and see in habitual ways that are in tune with a world that is no longer there. That is why I believe that young Friends need to have a major voice in discerning new paths to nurture our spiritual lives and new ways to run our organisation.
Think of the early Quakers, there were not many of them, and the active and influential ones were young people when they started out. George Fox (1624-1691), William Penn (1644-1718), Robert Barclay (1648-1690) were young when they arrived at their revelations about human’s potential relationship with the Divine.
Like-minded, talented preachers had gathered around George Fox by the time he was twenty-seven. When he preached to such great effect at Balby and later at Firbank Fell, he was twenty-eight.
William Penn was twenty-five when he published his influential ‘No Cross, No Crown’. He was only thirty-eight when he sailed to Pennsylvania in 1682 and created one of the early colonies in the land ‘given’ him by James II, through thoughtful negotiations with the settlers who were there.
Robert Barclay joined the Religious Society of Friends when he was nineteen, and wrote his impactful treatise ‘An Apology for the True Christian Divinity’ in 1676, barely a decade later. It was he who noted his belief that people are illuminated by the ‘inward light of Christ’ and this inward light is more, much more, essential, than any external source of information.
I would like to ask, are we older Friends inadvertently getting in the way of the radical changes that we know we need to make in the Society of Friends? Older Friends have much to offer in terms of ensuring support, encouragement, but we need new visions.
Can we stand back and entrust the young ones to discern how our Society can be inspiring, sustaining and ‘fit for the future’? I hope so, and trust we will do so.
Juliet Morton
Heed the promptings
I am perhaps mistaken but I have a different idea of the role of an elder than seems to be that of the writer of the letter headed ‘Elders and overseers’ (29 November).
I am not sure ‘facilitator’ is a better term than ‘elder’. ‘Elder’ hints more at the role the holder should adopt than the title itself. The role is defined in some detail in Quaker faith & practice (Qf&p). It includes ‘encouraging suitable ministry’ and ‘taking responsibility for the right holding of meetings’. The elder’s role is little more than ensuring the environment is conducive to allowing God (or God’s Spirit) to teach and transform us.
Also, we do not decide an issue on the basis of a majority in a Meeting, Quakerism is not a form of democracy. The writer then suggests a process for selecting a Friend for a role. Why not simply accept the wisdom and experience behind the advice in Qf&p?
Rather than continually re-inventing the wheel, I suggest we spend more time and effort on heeding the promptings of love and truth in our hearts, and trusting they come from God.
Stephen Petter
