Meeting for Sufferings
I am surprised and saddened to read correspondence in the Friend relating to the future of Meeting for Sufferings (MfS) that suggests that we are doing perfectly well as we are. If that were the case, why would MfS itself have discerned that the time is right to look at a different, more inclusive way of doing things?
Some Friends appear to be concerned that under the new proposals Area Meetings (AMs) would no longer be represented. At no time in the last eighteen months have all AMs been represented at Sufferings, despite the opportunities presented to attend by Zoom.
Sufferings itself has welcomed the proposals set out by the Group to Review Yearly Meeting, Yearly Meeting Gathering and Meeting for Sufferings (MfS/24/03/13 Review of Meeting for Sufferings). These contain a recommendation that AMs send representatives to the continuing Yearly Meeting (YM) and ask them to report back, which would help ensure continuity for YM and help Meetings feel connected to centrally managed work.
For my own part, I welcome the idea of a continuing Yearly Meeting where I personally can take responsibility for attending and taking part in our collective discernment whether or not I formally represent the Area Meeting.
For those who do not know anything about the proposal please see www.quaker.org.uk/documents/ap...> where there is also a link to the longer paper from GRYMM.
Above all, let us come to YM with hearts and minds prepared, not hearts and minds made up. Here is an opportunity for a change that could bring about greater clarity, a simpler structure, and increase accountability and participation. I don’t want to come to yet another YM where we simply go round in circles, unable to let go and live adventurously.
Ingrid Greenhow
I find myself in considerable sympathy with Anthony Gimpel (14 June) about his sadness over the decision to close Meeting for Sufferings (MfS). The use of Zoom may, as Anthony says, well have been a factor, as the ability to generate a gathered Meeting can be seriously weakened – and, consequently, the quality of discernment.
I don’t find the underlying reasons for closing down MfS totally persuasive. There is a lifeless, managerial smack to them. On top of that, there is the curious decision to abandon the name itself. MfS goes back to 1675 and while the way it functions may have changed greatly down the centuries, the name could hardly be more relevant today. Ours is a world of great suffering – something we have traditionally done what we could to engage with. Far from being an unnecessary archaism, Meeting for Sufferings is a title that aptly encapsulates all we stand for when it comes to faith in action. Might we be given the chance at Yearly Meeting to retain the name?
Jan Arriens
Membership
The recent Friends Quarterly issue (number fifty-two) on ‘Membership Matters’ has prompted me to tease out what being a member means to me.
I don’t see Quakers in Britain as a ‘society’ in the usual sense of the word. Membership does not mean joining a kind of club or signing up to a specific code of behaviour and values that I should abide by or agree to. This is an outdated view which I think needs to be laid to rest.
We are more like a movement: fluid, growing and learning. In which case, becoming a member is a decision to participate in a journey with others, following our particular paths in a similar direction, sharing values, learning and listening together, offering what we can, opening to new insights. In this sense, membership is probably best described as a personal commitment to common central beliefs and practices. We may well not agree with everything that is done in our name, but we respect differences and good intentions to do the best we can.
On reflection, I think membership for me also means something more than an individual commitment. It is a way of saying ‘Yes!’ to the whole Quaker movement in this country. It is an affirmation of all our gifts and strengths, and an expression of unity with this unique faith -based, visionary peace movement that needs to keep growing. It is a way of saying I care about all of this. It is important and I want to acknowledge this through being a member.
In this sense membership takes us beyond our individual selves and enables us to affirm the Quaker movement that we are all a part of. I hope the decisions we make about membership will help us to acknowledge the value of membership and embrace this perspective.
Ruth Tod
Friends and music
We have noted with interest Anthony Gimpel’s reference (14 June) to the idea of ‘play[ing] together in an orchestra’ being ‘fundamental to a Quaker Meeting for Worship’, even if impossible on Zoom. We would like to take this idea further. Quaker faith & practice only mentions music in sections 21.30 and 21.31, but states there, ‘Now we can say that Friends do not merely accept music, but that composing, performing and listening to music are, for many, essential parts of their spiritual lives’.
When Friends need to make collective decisions, this is done by agreement between all, not by majority. Everyone needs to agree, or at least not express or hold to a contrary opinion. The same applies in music, though there usually has to be a leader. But in fantasias such as those written for viols in this country in the sixteenth/seventeenth century, all parts are of equal importance – no one part predominates; all are equal. This marries in well with Quaker attitudes of avoiding domination, but regarding all people as equal – one thing that drew us toward Friends, and has made playing viol fantasias one of the greatest pleasures in our lives.
Harry & Lesley Woledge
Blended MfW at Newark
I’m aware that online Meeting for Worship (MfW) is a topic on which some hold strong views. Our experience here at the Newark Meeting House has been a largely positive one. Following the lifting of lockdown we decided to hold ongoing blended Meetings, not just for the benefit of those with mobility or health difficulties, but those at a distance. We are quite often joined by members of other Meetings in the area.
We were keen to minimise the impact on those attending in person. We have a modest-sized monitor screen in one corner, and a small microphone mounted on a beam over the centre of the room. The laptop is hidden out of sight. The wide-angle camera is likewise small and unobtrusive and gives those online a good view of most of the room. Optimising the experience for all concerned has had its challenges but we arrived at solutions which have met with general approval.
One aspect which took a while to get right was the sound heard by the ‘Zoomers’. Soft voices, particularly when further away from the microphone, can become unintelligible due to the noise-suppression algorithm in Zoom. This can be disabled using ‘original sound for musicians’ and this largely solves the problem. As a retired professional sound engineer I’ve been well-placed in this regard and I’ll be happy to discuss with anyone who is less than happy with their technology.
David Wright
Peace starts
I was most impressed by your front-page message (21 June). Peace starts by being kind with one’s own inner anger. If only world leaders would do it instead of expressing it.
I think a lot of my inner anger is due to the world situation, especially the wars in Palestine, Ukraine and Sudan. They all anger me with their inability to see the futility of war. What good does it do to kill and maim people and destroy everything? It might gain a bit of land but so what, it does not increase their countries’ well-being or standing in the world. It does not give them any real power over people or things. It is futile. It does not give them peace or contentment. It does not ease their anger. It gives nothing. Please stop fighting and talk. If only the universal soldier refused to fight, or people would stop making weapons. It would make a good world for people to live in and prosper.
Michael Osborne
Comments
Please login to add a comment
