Not every decision can be referred to the whole of a body corporate, such as a Quaker Meeting. It is impractical in some cases, for instance because of the need for a decision in a short time; it is implausible in others, for instance because of the need for those making the decision to have a clear understanding of certain facts or law; it is simply impossible in others, because it is not ripe for discernment in a large group, in the Quaker case, or for a vote or consensus decision in most other contexts, because it requires preparatory work. That preparatory work will inevitably mean making preliminary decisions, excluding some possible options.
So we have people in positions that, though we may hesitate to use the term, are positions of leadership. Elders lead our spiritual development, clerks lead the process of discernment, premises committees lead on the maintenance and use of our property, even librarians lead by making decisions on what to deliberately acquire for the library – and occasionally what to deliberately exclude when a copy is donated. They are positions of status, as respect is not unreasonably given to those whose names have been discerned to serve in certain roles – though we serve most faithfully when we deny, especially to ourselves, the status of a role in which we serve.
That status, that leadership, that role in decision-making, can be abused. A clerk can find convenient reasons to keep a matter of an agenda, or refuse to countenance a particular form of words in a minute. A librarian might exclude works by an author with whom they disagree, or perhaps with whom they have a difficult personal relationship. Elders can steer spiritual development, always a flexible proposition for liberal Friends, in a way that most satisfies their own spiritual leanings. Committees deciding where to make charitable contributions on behalf of the meeting can be swayed by their own interests. Newsletter editors can determine not to represent a particular point of view.
Every one of those examples involves the exercise of a power that it is necessary for that role-holder to possess, as they are responsible for those matters, and to be responsible for something without the power to fulfil that responsibility is a mockery of any sort of good governance.
Every one of those examples is also potentially abuse of that power. I do not use that word lightly. Indeed, it is too light a word. When used to further personal objectives rather than the good of the Meeting, when used to protect only one group from another when both groups have need of protection, when used to advance an agenda or restrict discussion of opposing views, it is not only abuse. It is betrayal.
When you make decisions or exercise power in a role, as an individual or as a member of a committee, remember you are not there to serve yourself, nor a faction or party, nor an intellectual or theological position. You are not there to make things more how you would wish to see them. You are there to serve the Meeting, but even that is not the most fundamental purpose of being in that role. You are there to serve the movement of the Spirit, as it is expressed in the Meeting.
That is not to say that the people that comprise the Meeting are not important; cases where serving the Spirit would be to the detriment of the Meeting or those who form its community are highly unusual, and require hard, careful discernment. But when your reason – the real reason, when you are totally honest with yourself – for a particular decision is to avoid hurt, you risk betraying the call of the Spirit that put you in the position to make that decision. Sometimes the right decision is going to hurt, whether it is you or others. The same goes for making a decision to avoid contention, as contention can very well be part of the path of the Spirit, and is often the only way to truly resolve something. Likewise, the risk is there if you take a decision in a certain way because you think you, personally, know the right way forward because of your personal views or allegiance to a school of thought.
When you make a decision fundamentally for your own comfort, or to advance your agenda, or because you just think you know best, it goes beyond risking betrayal of the Spirit. If, when you get right down to it, the reasons for your decision are dominated by any of those factors, you almost certainly have betrayed the commission of the Spirit that put you in the position of making that decision.
It’s important to accept this, because without accepting it you cannot learn from it. Those of you who are veterans of responsible roles, especially those that are most seen as giving status in our community, should sit down and take inventory. I’m certain you have, from time to time, betrayed the Spirit in this way; it is probably impossible to be otherwise, fallible as we are. I know that I have fallen into that failure, that betrayal, myself, and would not seek to deny it. I know I will do so again, given sufficient opportunity, as no self-discipline or experience will remove our fallibility.
You may well have committed much greater betrayals. I’m not going to judge you, even if I know about them. All I want to do is shine a light on them, even if it’s a light that only those who have transgressed see, and that people learn from what that light shows.
Written December 2020
