Recognising and Supporting Ministry

We always say, and have said for some time (not without scriptural authority, though I sometimes think that one of the favourites is being twisted a little away from its intended meaning) that there are many gifts of the Spirit. These are abilities that we might put into use in the service of Truth, usually now meaning in service of our Meetings. However, liberal Meetings have largely grown away from recognising certain gifts. I speak, of course, of gifts of ministry.

It is necessary here to digress slightly into what we mean by “ministry”. It is a wonderful word, quite rich in its meaning before we Quakers came along and bent it into new shapes, albeit ones not inconsistent with the history or etymology of the time. It is derived from the Latin ministerium, meaning the office of a minister. Of course, what is meant by that term in Latin would not necessarily be terribly recognisable to modern English speakers. In countries where governmental terms derive from Britain (but a more recent divergence than that of the United States), a minister is a member of a government, generally one with considerable power – or at least who likes to think they have. Certainly they tend to have plenty of underlings. Of course, they are led by a prime minister, often conceived of as a first among equals but generally speaking the head of the executive element of government. In many faiths, we have ministers of religion, who tend to exercise authority over their flock in some way. A third major instance of the term, much less familiar to most people nowadays, is in the world of diplomacy. There, it is the usual short form for the title envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, and obsolete but still technically extant diplomatic rank used for the heads of missions that were rated as legations, a lower status than an embassy (which is naturally headed by an ambassador). There was also, going further back, a further rank of minister resident, for missions ranked below legations – often from or to states that existed de facto rather than de jure, or otherwise poor or unimportant polities. Since the growing value of the UN in the 60s, sovereign states now generally only create embassies as their diplomatic missions, unless there are not full diplomatic relations between them. In that case, a mission led by a chargé d'affaires en pied will be established, if anything. In that case, the head of mission is accredited between the foreign ministers involved, rather than between heads of state.

In only the last of those cases is there a clear vision of the original meaning in the Latin, where a minister is a servant. A minister resident is a servant of his own government, resident in another country. The idea of ministers as senior members of government goes back to the idea of a “king's minister”, someone who served the monarch in the administration of government. And, of course (some of you may have been yelling this at the screen for a while), a minister of religion is a servant of their church, or of their faith's adherents – the two not necessarily always being the same in practice.

Whether it was the intention of early Friends or not, it is easy to understand the idea of spoken ministry in Meeting for Worship as being about service. We serve the Divine, and our fellow worshippers, by being the channel for a message. There is a growing sense in Britain of using the word ministry to refer to the particular mission of a Meeting as well – a Meeting might have a “ministry of outreach”, though that seems to be rare, or a “ministry of social action” (usually more specific than that). This seems closely related to the idea of concerns, though not entirely the same thing; it seems to be both less specific and more pervasive. It is the service that the Meeting gives. A vestige of it still survives in the idea of “travelling in the ministry”, though this often seems to have less ministry, and much more focus on the travelling, today.

In a sense, you could see this blog as a form of ministry. Obviously, there are the posts that I described as “written ministry”, which is meant in the same sense as the spoken ministry we share in Meeting for Worship, but there is also the sense in which the blog as a whole is part of my service to the Religious Society of Friends, and to the wider world. Others I know, elsewhere in the world, refer to some of their activities online as ministries (this seems more common in North America), and some have the support of their Meetings in undertaking this. A person may be called to minister to a particular audience, or in a particular way. Ministry is a very broad idea. Perhaps it is worth considering this “speaking publicly in a religious way”, speaking in such a way to the various parts of our Religious Society and to the wider society in which we are situated, a distinct category – public ministry (not a term I'm claiming to have coined).

Now let us take a slight sojourn into Quaker history. Of course, I say history, but it is very much still a live part of Quaker practice – outside of liberal Meetings. I refer to the practice of recording ministers, a practice that was widespread throughout our Religious Society once upon a time, and is still found in many parts of the pastoral wing of that Society. This is not the same as having pastors, though a recorded minister might also be a pastor; being a pastor typically means being employed by the Meeting to take on certain responsibilities – and which responsibilities will depend on the Meeting, while being recorded as a minister is a recognition of gifts and calling.

As far as I can ascertain, being a recorded minister meant that it had been recognised that you had a particular gift for spoken ministry, particular insight into the guidance of the Spirit. Recording recognised this, that it might be known and nurtured, but it also set one above one's fellows – figuratively and literally, as it entitled (sometimes required) one to sit on the raised platform reserved for elders and ministers. In some meeting houses, at some periods, all the benches in the meeting room would face towards this platform, except those on it, which would face the other way. This is a far cry from our now-usual practice of concentric circles (or squares, hexagons, etc.); while anyone could stand and speak, the tacit expectation was that the most important ministry, and often the most verbose, would come from those who were recorded.

A young Friend in America, Ashley Wilcox, has recently – during the period over which I have been writing this post – announced her goal, her sense of calling from God, to restore the practice of recording ministers among unprogrammed Friends in North America, and to fix it among programmed Friends. Chuck Fager has written a reaction, and it is very interesting in itself as a piece of writing distinct from Ashley's speech. It is very illuminating regarding the flaws that developed – or were always present – in the recording system. However, in relation to the speech it is only a report, and the speaker has also (since Chuck posted his reaction) posted the text herself. Friends may derive a different impression from that which Chuck has reported, especially as Chuck seems to have focussed on what he considered the most troubling elements of the speech. That's not entirely unreasonable, assuming that his reaction was to those specific elements. However, it does mean that those reading only Chuck's reaction will be missing some of the context for those specific elements. Personally, I found some of the rest of the text actually reassuring regarding the troubling parts, and indeed that they significantly affected the meaning. I do not find that the depiction of the speech as self-important, of claiming divine authority to demand change from Friends everywhere, to be in any way accurate. Perhaps Ashley was off-text, and what she has posted is not an accurate record of what she said; it's hardly unusual for people to go a little off-text when speaking. Perhaps Chuck got the wrong idea about some elements. I don't know. I shan't propose to judge between them.

Perhaps the time is ripe for a new consideration of the recording system among liberal Friends. Chuck's criticisms, which are useful in relation to the history and idea of recording ministers even if it may not be so as a report of the speech, cover such things as it being far from the levelling ideal that liberal Friends today generally espouse, that it encouraged conservatism, and that it gave Friends quasi-official weight in decision-making. These criticisms are well-founded. I don't doubt that it was ended with good reason. However, Ashley's criticisms that the lack of recording fails to recognise that some are called to a sustained activity of service to the Spirit in public ministry, that it fails to give the support and accountability that such callings may require, and that it has been justified by an overstated dedication to equality, are also reasonable and speak to me. Her points about needing to live with discomfort are certainly something that I have felt. We are not gathered to be comforted, but to be transformed and to transform the world.

Ashley describes herself as a preacher, and many Friends, largely among the liberal wing, will say “Quakers don't have preachers”. But is that true, even of liberal Friends? Certainly we had many Friends in the early years of the Society who were considered preachers, and they could be very disruptive in the communities they visited and preached in. A preacher is one who preaches, and preaching has developed negative connotations – of telling people what they should do, how they should think, of admonishing them (in the modern, negative sense). The online Cambridge dictionary gives three definitions of preach, online Oxford gives one definition, but with four sub-points, and Merriam-Webster gives six definitions of preach. What they have in common is the central idea of a religious usage, the possibility of negative connotations, but also a sense that it means advocating an idea – or just to publicly proclaim or teach something. It is also used for non-religious ideas, such as “preaching socialism”, though this may carry the connotation that such advocacy seems religious in its fervour or absolutism. It is also common, though, to “preach tolerance”, which seems less likely to have a negative connotation. It comes from the Latin praedico, which gained its primarily religious connotation only under Christianity. It meant to proclaim or declare publicly, to announce or make known, or to praise, command or extol. We can see those meanings clearly in the modern usage, though we cannot escape the connotations that the word preach has gained.

Yet we most certainly preach. On an organisational level, individual Meetings, Yearly Meetings and umbrella groups all make it known what things they see wrong with the world, from my Local Meeting's work concerning refugees and asylum seekers, fracking, and the Living Wage, to national level work from groups like Quaker Peace & Social Witness or Friends Committee on National Legislation, and even further to international bodies like the Quaker United Nations Offices in New York and Geneva. On the individual level, there are more than a few Friends who are outspoken on certain issues, and some of them freely talk about the religious basis for their advocacy. Not only that, but a great deal of spoken ministry in Meeting for Worship is, if we are honest, preaching. It may not be forceful or judgemental – though it certainly can be – but it is often advocating or proclaiming things, and often things of a religious nature. Every Quaker should be ready to be a preacher, if the Spirit calls them, even if they would rather not use that term because of its connotations. In calling herself a preacher, I suspect that Ashley is claiming it as an identity because it is central to her life and experience, perhaps because she is called to do it in a sustained and focussed way.

We all give service to our Meetings in different ways, and in that sense we are all ministers. Even those not called to a particular appointment in their Meeting tend to serve in some way, even if 'only' to be on the welcome and doorkeeping rota, or contributing flowers, or taking a turn making tea and coffee after Meeting for Worship. Many, if not most of us are called, via the nominations process, to give some specific service to our Meetings for a term of years. But what about where we are called directly, drawn, led to a particular activity, some witness outside of the structure of roles? Here in Britain YM we have elders who are responsible for the spiritual nurture of the Meeting, and maintaining right order of worship (including of Meeting for Worship for Business). We have overseers who are responsible for pastoral care (in the secular sense). Both of these are tasks that would be considered pastoral in a church with a designated clergy, but they are the responsibility of us all – nominated and appointed individuals take particular responsibility, but that does not diminish our shared responsibility. Yet there is more, for some people, things that are consuming drives – prolonged commitments that we are called to that are not part of the normal structure of roles in our Meetings.

I don't know in detail how this might be handled in other Yearly Meetings, but we do have one mechanism for this here in Britain – we recognise that a Friend might be acting under concern. Someone with a call can go to their Meeting, have their concern tested, and it may be recognised by the Meeting, essentially a form of validation, and if so it may further be supported by the Meeting, or adopted by the Meeting as a concern of the Meeting as a whole. In any of those cases, it may be passed to the Area Meeting for further consideration, and the Area Meeting may choose to pass it to Meeting for Sufferings to inform work and discernment across the whole Yearly Meeting. It is, in principle, an elegant and effective system.

Of course, practice does not always line up with theory, and we are not always great at handling these things. There is immense variation in how thoroughly concerns are tested, or what support might be offered if the Meeting supports the concern. I have a strong suspicion, however, that even where it is handled well, and a range of different support might be given as appropriate, that having a concern for preaching – however one might try to phrase it to avoid loaded meanings – would not generally be well received. Ideally, it should be tested as any other concern, but people are used to seeing concerns like social action, activism, helping those in need, improving our provision for children and young people. Concerns that are actually spiritual in nature are not what we are used to seeing, and I have considerable concern as to whether they would be tested dispassionately – or whether they might rather meet a visceral “but we don't do that” reaction.

If it were handled properly, the call to ministry that recording once recognised could work through the concern process. Maybe it needs some test cases. I suspect it might work in some Meetings, but not most. People would be so sure that this is not something we should recognise and support that they would struggle to actually open their hearts to be guided by the Spirit. We are all fallible. But if it is handled properly, and appropriate support given by the Meeting, that would include nurture, and accountability. It would mean, possibly, an appointed Support Group who monitored what the Friend was doing, acted as a standing body to aid in clearness, and helped recommend or point them at sources of learning and nurture.

In explaining the idea of concerns, Britain Yearly Meeting's Quaker faith & practice uses the term 'ministry'. It also outlines in the introduction to a fairly long section on the matter just how far a Meeting's support might go:

The ministry which has been carried out ‘under concern’ is a remarkable record of strength and perseverance in adversity. Many speak of the peace that came to them with the certainty that they were working with God. Recognising concern has also placed an obligation on the meeting which tests and supports it. Friends have on occasion been released from financial considerations and in some cases their families have been cared for whilst they carried out the service required of them. (Quaker faith & practice 13.02)

Now, “released from financial considerations” and “their families … cared for” are somewhat oblique, but it is obvious what is meant – that people are supported, funded to carry out the work that they are called to do. Indeed, there is still the possibility noted of applying for support from Meeting for Sufferings, who may provide a “minute of liberation” (Qf&p 13.15 and 13.28). Our Meetings can't afford to do this all over the place, though some could afford to do it sometimes. There are also possibilities of grant funding from various places. However, I am not advocating a widespread practice of paying people to undertake practical or spiritual concerns. Rather, I am seeking to illustrate the extent to which we are, in principle if not in practice, willing to support people who are following a tested calling. The “liberation” of the minute from Meeting for Sufferings refers, as I understand it, to liberation from normal labour, from the concerns that would otherwise prevent them.

So, the need, if we allow that term, for recording of ministers might be met by recognising and supporting concerns. That avoids the risks of calling people ministers, with its history of connotation of authority and of being seen as a barrier to new light – of becoming part of the establishment rather than driven by fresh leadings. As William Charles Braithwaite noted,

It is with individuals rather than with communities that new truth originates… While corporate guidance is of great value in controlling individual extravagance, it is a source of great danger to the church if it is opposed to a genuine individual concern. (Quaker faith & practice 13.10)

This quotation also points to the risk – and that is the reason for its inclusion at this point in Qf&p – that an institutional process of recognising concerns, within which we might include a call to public ministry, will be reluctant to recognise those that make them, as individuals or institutions, uncomfortable. Let us once again recall John Woolman and Benjamin Lay, by way of example – and there are many we can choose from.

Unless we are to deny that there is ever a valid calling to sustained public ministry, we must be ready to fairly and faithfully test such leadings. If our general conception of concerns is, as it seems to me, focussed on the practical or the organisationally inward, then we do perhaps need another term. But while the attraction of traditional language is strong, the terminology of the past, of the recorded minister, is tainted by history and by the connotations it has taken. We cannot seek to always ensure we have recorded ministers, even by another name, among us. We cannot set them in positions of authority, and we cannot use what authority already exists to constrain public ministry except in the most extreme circumstances.

Let us test this call as with any other concern, but with a more tailored process and terminology. Let us learn anew how to support and guide people with such a calling, how we can give them accountability without restraining them. Let it not be a badge of honour, but a recognition of a burden placed by the Spirit and accepted by the individual. Let it not be a requirement for anything, but an opportunity. The many Quaker bloggers out there need not all have their call to do so tested by their Meeting and their output overseen; that is not the type of Society that we are now. But some may wish to have that test, and the support and guidance it may lead to. Their Meetings need not scrutinize everything they intend to publish before it is approved, but it may have a structure to keep up with their output and give feedback, to offer challenges but not constraints.

Many of those who identify themselves as feeling this call describe a sense of needing to realign their life in order to follow it. While this should not be a matter for payment, we need to be aware of this and be prepared to support people in kind to help them through this realignment. We should be prepared to caution people, to make them aware of the upheaval they may face as they answer the call, but only out of kindness, to help them be prepared and informed – not to warn them off.

Quakers do not generally preach on the streets, but maybe we should? I don't know. Maybe the call is there and it has been constrained by a lack of proper, open testing, by the weight of modern liberal Quaker conventionality and, let us be frank, conservatism. Maybe there is a fervour and creativity and divine call that is resisted by the rigidity of liberal expectation.

Let us open the doors and find out. Let us start working out how we can test and support such calls, and see what happens. We don't have to record ministers; perhaps we could recognise ministries instead, or concerns for public ministry. But I sense that the time is right to do something, even if it is often hard to convince Friends of the need to do anything.

Whatever you may think of the wisdom of Ashley Wilcox, or of the cautions of history from Chuck Fager, there are those who feel these calls, and I do not hesitate to say that I consider myself one of them. I cannot say I agree entirely with all that Ashley says, nor yet that I see the egotism or threat that Chuck seems to see in it. But this call is there, and we do not do what we should to welcome it, test it, support it. I did wonder if I should seek the approval or support of my Meeting before starting this blog. I discussed it with Friends, and for a number of reasons decided that it was neither necessary nor advisable. If we had a supportive system, perhaps I would not have come down that way, and perhaps this blog would be better for that support. I don't know.

Yes, there is a risk that this will be seen as conferring authority, and that must be avoided. It is about recognising those with the gifts and the call to express Quaker thought and spiritual insights, by whatever means, but not according any special weight to what they give. The risk of promoting schisms – either by one thinker becoming the favourite of some meetings and another that of others, or by a perceived favouritism towards one strand of thought over another – is very real, but we cannot prevent schisms by discouraging people from thinking and exchanging ideas.

Let us actually address these issues, and try to find our way forward. If we can engage with open and full hearts, I have faith that a way will open, and we will see a clear path before us. If we just look at the past, and worry about ego, or indeed focus on practical matters or on the risk of disapproval, it will remain clouded.

Can we meet that challenge?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
If you feel like supporting my ministry, then a kindly word or a share is always helpful; if you want to make a more concrete contribution, there's always my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.