 |
| Engraving of Vespasian, Roman Emperor, by unknown artist circa 17th-18th century |
We Quakers have a somewhat idiosyncratic way of getting a lot of our work done. In any organisation, in any community, there will be certain jobs that need to be done for that community – and some way of deciding who does the jobs and in what way.
In your stereotypical secular organisation, the main ongoing jobs are codified into specific positions – chair, secretary, treasurer, social secretary, communications officer, and so forth. Any work that needs doing is either in the remit of one of these people, or an executive committee decides who will do it. Who serves in the various named positions is usually a matter for election, though it is not unheard of for an executive committee for one year to designate the executive committee for the next, subject to ratification in general meeting, or for some or all of the positions to be filled ex officio by people with positions in other (typically constituent or affiliated) organisations. By and large, though, it comes down to something to some degree typically democratic – there is a vote of the membership to determine who serves in what role.
In less formal organisations, work is often done by whoever shows up. Decisions, be they by vote or consensus, are made at meetings by a self-selecting body of those who cared enough to show up. If the organisation wants a newsletter, someone volunteers to do it, and does so if no-one objects; when they cease to do so, someone else will offer – or not, and the work doesn’t happen, for good or ill.
Of course, if work is to be done by a paid employee, there are a whole other set of considerations, which aren’t relevant to what is being said now.
As Quakers, at least in the liberal traditions – I cannot speak for pastoral and evangelical traditions, though I am fairly sure conservative meetings follow similar practice to ours – we do things in a rather different way. Oh, for small things we just let people volunteer, but we never elect people to positions through a vote. The wisdom of the masses expressed through democratic election is fallible, as I’m sure those of all political persuasions will agree looking at public elections down the centuries. It is particularly vulnerable to becoming a popularity contest, rather than a judgement over who will do the job best, and can be swayed by demagoguery and self-interest.
As we seek to put the whole of our lives under the ordering of the Spirit, so we look to that Spirit to decide who should serve us in the various roles we have come up with (and my goodness, haven’t we come up with a lot). We do this by applying the Quaker Business Method, silent waiting, to the question; often we appoint a committee specifically to do this. The degree to which Quaker Business Method is faithfully following in these Nominations meetings is, to be brutally honest, quite variable. I am aware that there are Nominations committees in Great Britain – or at least were a few years ago – who approach the situation initially more like a recruiter, seeking the guidance of the Spirit only once there is a shortlist – and often a well-sifted shortlist.
Those known to the members of the Nominations Committee are more likely to be considered, naturally, though attempts to mitigate this problem are made. They include the members of the committee taking special efforts to get to know more people, nominating people to the Nominations Committee partly based on them providing ‘access’ to a demographic that is not well-known to the current committee, and the ever popular-unpopular use of forms and records to give the committee a record of who is available for nomination, what experience they have, and what they are particularly interested in.
This latter option of course increases the risk of it ending up more like a recruitment process, sifting quasi-applications to find possible candidates. It is unavoidable when it comes to things like Yearly Meeting nominations in a YM the size of Britain Yearly Meeting, and steps can be taken to mitigate it, but it would be self-deceptive to deny that it were a factor in how nominations works.
Ultimately, though, the decision on who should serve in what role is in the hands of the Spirit, as discerned through the Quaker Business Method. There is, or at least should be, no campaigning or lobbying to get a person into a role, no manifesto as to what they would do once there. What, one might then wonder, is the mandate of a role-holder? What can they reasonably claim they have the backing of the Meeting – or of the Spirit – to do?
I would hope that many of my Quaker readers will have already pre-empted my answer to that question, possibly yelling colourfully at their screen (or screen reader). To frame such a question is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of being appointed to a Quaker role. Serving in any role – nominated or simply as a self-selecting volunteer – is a matter of giving service. It is not a matter of ‘gaining power’.
Oh, on a practical level, there is undeniably power in a Quaker role. A clerk of a committee or a Meeting will generally have a lot of control of what business is put before the meeting, and in what manner. This is necessary, as agendas need to be produced, items prepared for presentation to be sure what question is being asked and whether the meeting will possibly be ready to answer it, and there are always constraints on time for Meetings for Worship for Business, much as we might ideally, as a matter of principle, consider that there be no such bounds. That power is, however, only given the clerk for the purpose of faithfully giving service.
That is what I would call on every Quaker to remember, when they serve in a role or when they interact with one who is doing so. We serve in our roles; the term role-holder, in wide currency at least among British friends, distracts from this. Being a clerk, an elder, a trustee is not a status we hold. It is a burden placed upon us, and while we might take joy in that burden, we should always consider it in that light.
“To hold” and “to bear” might be seen as synonymous in this context, but the other uses of the words makes a difference. Where “hold” might be interpreted as “grasp”, as for a desired thing, “bear” is more likely to connote an unwanted thing, a burden. Perhaps rather than saying that some has held a role, we should say that they have borne it. Rather than role-holder, we might speak of role-bearers. That seems rather more fitting to the nature of service, and more likely to put people’s minds in the right frame when they consider how they fulfil their role. Perhaps it might give too much of a sense of burden; language has power in how we perceive things well beyond the point where we use the language. I struggle to find a better balance, but I would certainly like to hear – and discuss – other ideas.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
