This is a long post, exploring issues in detail, and I would encourage those interested in the topic to read the whole thing. However, a summary is provided at the end of the post, covering both arguments and advice, and should you wish, you can skip to it.
 |
| Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive in the application of Quaker Business Method. |
As Quakers, we try to make our decisions using Quaker Business Method – a subject on which I have written a lot, albeit no basic introduction, but please check out the Quaker Business Method tag on this blog for more of my writing on the subject. This is a method, also known as discernment (or more specifically group discernment, as one can engage in discernment entirely alone) whereby we do not set aside our rational mind entirely; we prepare by trying to understand the subject as much as possible, and try to be aware of all the rational factors involved, as well as spiritual ones. We do, however, make the decision in silent waiting, led by spoken ministry (when meeting in such a way that that is possible), so as to make the decision under the guidance of the Divine.
As such, many would say we can’t always (or possibly ever) give clear reasons for decisions. Sometimes the ministry is such that we can see how the various factors were balanced, and we can give an ex post facto rational explanation. Sometimes it’s just “the ministry led us this way, and well, that’s the decision”.
One problem is that sometimes, usually when interacting with the outside world or following legal obligations, we need to be able to express a decision rationally, possibly in terms of some set framework. How, then, can we do discernment in a way that allows us to meet such requirements? Read on for some ways to approach this question – and some circumstances where it might be a good idea to try it even if we have no obligation to express ourselves rationally.
Disclaimer and notes (click to skip): I am not a legal professional, and nothing in this post should be taken as legal advice; legal examples are used only for illustration, and even then of an extreme case. Less extreme and unlikely cases are also considered – and given much more attention. I might be wrong about the law, but the principles that I derive from it are ones that I am confident about, including their application to Quaker organisations where no legal or regulatory question is involved.
References to roles and committees are based on Britain Yearly Meeting usage; ‘elders’ are known as ‘ministry and counsel’ in at least some North American Meetings, and I have no idea if there is a role equivalent to overseers (a term more people in North America find troubling than here in Britain, though there are those who wish to see an end to the use of both that term and ‘elders’), so I will simply explain that they are responsible for the pastoral well-being of the community and individuals within it, while elders are responsible for the spiritual well-being and development of the community and individuals within it, and for the right holding of Meetings for Worship, including those for Business. Other roles referred to are either known by the same name in most English-speaking Meetings, or their meanings should be obvious.
Let us begin by understanding the actual proposition – what is “rational decision-making”. There are various answers possible, so I will explain what I mean by it in this context. I trust that “decision-making” is self-explanatory, so we will focus on the word rational, and the way it changes the meaning of “decision-making”. If one were to commit the etymological fallacy – that is, to demand that words mean what they ‘should’ mean based on how the word was formed – “rational decision-making” would mean decision making with a ratio, Latin for ‘reason’, or ‘explanation’, or ‘reasoning’, or ‘grounds’, or ‘motive’ (translating between English and Latin is full of pitfalls – not only are possible translations generally not one-to-one, they are typically many-to-many, and it requires a knowledge of how words from both languages are used in context). Ratio occurs in the legal Latin phrase ratio decidendi, generally explained as “reason (or rationale) for the decision”, used to distinguish elements of a written judgement or decision between the ratio (as it is generally abbreviated) and the obiter dicta (often abbreviated to obiter and used as an adjective – such as “obiter comments” in a judgement), “other things said”, statements of opinion (often as to law) that are in the judgement but are not part of the reasons for the decision made; the distinction is important when considering stare decisis, “things already decided”, the principle behind the idea of precedent, particularly in Common Law jurisdictions (essentially those legal systems that derive their principles from English law).
Following the etymology, and the demonstrated uses of the Latin antecedent, therefore, we might read “rational decision-making” as “decision making for which reasoning or explanation is (or can be) provided”. Indeed, that is a fundamental element of rational decision-making, but it is not the start and end of it. Rational has also taken on other shades of meaning – logically sound and not contradictory being the one that mostly concerns us. Again, to take a legal example, in England and Wales one of the grounds on which a decision of a public authority – or a court – can be challenged is that it was irrational, despite the fact that in both cases reasons ought to, and generally will have been given. The same idea is often expressed as unreasonable, which can be taken quite literally; a decision which cannot be reached by (valid) application of reason. The legal test for this in England and Wales is known as Wednesbury unreasonableness, after the precedent-setting case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223 (it’s a pretty dry read if you’re not into that sort of thing), which set three tests (or a single three-limbed test) for a decision being unreasonable to the extent that a court would intervene: matters were taken into account that should not have been, matters were not taken into account that should have been, or the decision being “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”.
 |
| A key aspect of rational decision-making is how different factors balance against one another. |
Very clinical. Very suited to bureaucracy and courts. Not, on the surface, very suited to Quaker discernment. And yet, that way of looking at it still allows for an ‘x’ factor, that different lines of reasoning can be taken, that factors can be weighted differently, that different interpretations can be put on things. That is the space for discernment in rational decision making.
Let us consider an extreme, and hopefully unlikely scenario – someone wishes to challenge a decision made by a Quaker Meeting in court. I should, at this point, repeat the disclaimer at the top of this post – I am not a legal professional, and nothing here is legal advice; it should be taken as an abstract (and extreme) example, not for practical application – practical applications and advice will be covered shortly, and are not related to legal questions, but those of fairness and good governance.
Even in England and Wales, Wednesbury wouldn’t necessarily apply to such a dispute, as it relates to the deference given by the court to public authorities. Depending on the nature of the decision, it might fall to be considered in the law of contracts, or of equity, and charity law is likely to play a part. A court might look at reasonable expectations, contractual or other legal obligations, or all manner of other factors, including fairness. Still, for the court to be able to examine the decision properly, it needs to be expressed in a way that allows relevant factors to be considered. A bald minute stating the decision could be hard to defend, because it is hard (if not impossible) to explain, even for the person who clerked the business session in question.
In a less extreme case, the Charity Commission (or similar regulators outside England and Wales) may investigate a Quaker Meeting for compliance with any laws, not only charity law, and that is likely to include questioning how or why a decision has been made in some cases. “We asked God what to do, and this was the answer” isn’t likely to cut it. However, if we assume that the Spirit isn’t going to lead us to decisions that are unreasonable (an assumption that I, personally, am willing to make), even if the reasons and reasoning aren’t necessarily clear to us when we make the decision, it must be possible to understand the reasoning, at least in cases where it might be important to be able to report that reasoning.
Possible legal or regulatory peril is, as I have noted, a fairly extreme situation, and I do not propose to give advice for those (especially given that I am not qualified to do so). There are situations, however, where it is only fair – and can save a lot of recriminations – if we give reasons. I have faith that the reasons in Spirit-led decisions are there, and sometimes they are entirely clear from ministry, but all too often decisions are marked only by a terse minute stating the decision. Longer minutes sometimes give indications of reasons, and sometimes are, frankly, just waffle (or give some meaningful commentary stating important matters of principle, but that doesn’t reflect the reasons for the decision). Where this becomes more likely to be a problem are two main situations: understanding the decisions later, sometimes years later, when they become relevant again, and decisions that involve individuals, which can often be contentious and lead to emotional reactions (indeed, often having emotional beginnings in the first place).
In the first case, we might have decisions about property – deciding to do or not do some proposed work to it, for instance – or investments, about recruitment (not necessarily who to hire, but what paid jobs to create), or about policies and organisational structures. Often the documents that led up to the decision are no longer available, and they may not in any case allow us to reconstruct Spirit-led reasoning to understand why something was done a certain way. Thus when a new decision is needed that must exist in the context of the old one – such as reversing it, refining it, or building on it – the new decision needs to be made without much if any ability to refer to the old decision. I speak from experience when I say that this can make life very difficult. Institutional memory can only go so far when reasons for decisions are not recorded with those decisions. Some of the people involved might still be around, but their recollections may vary, may be very hazy, and may become unavailable without notice. For some decisions, it may even not be appropriate to consult those people if they are not in a role involved in the new decision.
Recording decisions with full context and clarity is not only helpful for future decisions that relate to that decision, but also for future historians – it allows them to see, for instance, the progression of Quaker views across different meetings over time on a social issue, such as slavery, refugees, or gender and sexuality. It can also prevent unjustified inertia – and promote justified inertia – in terms of corporate approaches to a matter; if we know why Friends of a given time made a decision on theology, discipline or a social issue, that makes it easier to see whether we have moved on from those reasons.
The second case is more difficult. Where a decision directly affects a person, or is on a matter that is very important to them, they will want to know why it came out a certain way – especially if it is not what they want to hear. Where there are disputes or complaints within a community, people are unlikely to accept “elders/overseers/trustees considered this and, in discernment, decided to take no further action/do X” as an explanation, however strong their faith in discernment. It is only fair that we explain decisions when we can, and the fact that the decision was reached through Quaker discernment is not a reason that we can’t. If there is any method for asking someone else to review a decision, it becomes particularly important. Let us consider some hypothetical examples.
A Friend may be passionate about some topic. They bring it to their Local Business Meeting, wanting the Meeting to take some action. This might be a change to the building, a change to how Meeting for Worship is organised, a change to the rules for people hiring rooms, making a statement on some topical matter of principle – any number of things. The Meeting as a whole, in session, refers it to a relevant committee – such as a premises committee, elders, or overseers – for their consideration and recommendation. They report back with a simple statement that they recommend not making the change or doing the thing, and their minutes are not any more enlightening. The Meeting accepts their discernment in the matter. Some of you might think this an unlikely sequence of events, but I have seen the essential pattern several times in different Meetings.
Or consider a situation where one Friend is behaving in a way that others consider disruptive or inappropriate, in Meeting for Worship or in Meeting for Worship for Business. Complaints about this make their way to elders, or elders decide to act on their own initiative. They have separate conversations with the individual and with people who find their behaviour disruptive or inappropriate, and then meet to consider the matter. They decide to counsel the individual in question about their behaviour – minuting no more than that they have looked into the complaints and spoken to people, and that one or more of them will counsel the person. The person listens when they are counselled, but insists that their behaviour is for good reason, for example they cannot avoid it due to a medical condition, or that it is not inappropriate. The behaviour continues. Elders consider the matter further, possibly at the request of Local Business Meeting, and come to the conclusion, in discernment, that the person should be excluded from Meeting until they commit to ceasing the behaviour in question – and again, the minute records nothing beyond that. They report to Local Business Meeting, providing that minute, and Local Business Meeting accepts the report and its recommendation.
Now, if the person in question has been present in all sessions of Local Business Meeting in which either of these examples were considered, they will likely have a good idea of the factors in play. They are likely to have been mentioned in ministry. However, they may not have been able to attend the final Business Meeting in which the ultimate decision was made, on the recommendation of a relevant committee. In any case, the substantive decision was made at the meeting of the committee in question, which we can assume (for the sake of these hypothetical examples) was not open to the person in question to attend. They thus have no reasons, just the assurance that the decision was made in worship and discernment.
In the first example, the person may know what objections were raised, if they were present to hear them, but not what factors had greater or lesser influence on the decision. In fairness, depending on how the discernment went, neither might the committee in question – unless they take steps to ensure their discernment provides reasons as well a decision. With reasons, especially if those reasons are expressed according to a sensible, structured rubric, they can understand why their proposal was rejected. They are then more likely to accept it, but perhaps more importantly, they are able to meaningfully and sensibly revise their proposals to deal with the problems that were identified, to remove the reasons that led to it being refused. This might lead to cases of people repeatedly bringing slightly-amended proposals that are all doomed to failure, but good practices in presenting the reasons reduce the likelihood of this, and some degree of such behaviour is a fair price to pay for the benefit to be found from ending up with good, agreeable proposals that enrich a Meeting or improve their witness in the world.
The second example is far more difficult. In any reasonable organisation, decisions taken against a person should be subject to review. Both for that reason and in terms of plain fairness, a person deserves to know the reasons for the decision. You cannot meaningfully ask someone else – say, a meeting of elders across the Area Meeting, not just those in the Local Meeting, or trustees, or some body set up specifically to review such decisions – to review a decision if they only have the result of the decision, not reasons for it. A person who knows that the reasons didn’t consider a material matter that they had raised – such as a medical condition – will want to be sure that those reviewing the decision knew about that, and will likely address their request for review specifically at that point. If the reasons included some matter that is arguably not relevant, the review might address that. Finally, if the reasons were so illogical that they cannot be understood to lead to the conclusion that was reached, that can also be addressed. You may recognise these examples as the limbs of the Wednesbury test, which serves as a good example even in contexts to which it does not actually apply.
It is also helpful if minutes clearly communicate the full process and detail precisely what action should be taken. If minutes record merely that a matter was discussed, and someone is going to counsel a person regarding behaviour, there is no record of what that counselling will consist of. This may lead to disputes even among the committee in question regarding what they were supposed to be telling the person. If what is to be said is recorded, then the person can tell whether or not the action decided upon was actually taken – which may be very relevant to a later decision to exclude them.
As an additional point, one that goes to the heart of Quaker decision-making, consider the point in each example where a recommendation is made to a Business Meeting by a committee. Respect for the discernment of other bodies only goes so far – if the decision is the responsibility of a Meeting, it must make the decision. If it makes it on the recommendation of a committee (or an outside body of any sort), it should fully engage with that recommendation to decide whether or not to accept it. We are none of us flawless, and the product of faithfully-conducted discernment is not unimpeachable, as different bodies discerning faithfully may come to different conclusions, and it is in any case rare for any discernment to be conducted in a way that could reasonably be described as ‘flawless’. Thus such a recommendation should always come with reasons that the receiving body can understand and evaluate for itself, potentially making a different decision, or returning a new minute to the recommender pointing out issues with their reasons and asking them to try again.
 |
| Rational decision-making isn't just for judges. |
For categories of decision that are likely to be contentious, organisational policies and practices can go a long way to ensure fairness of process and allow (or assure) decisions expressed in a rational manner. Any organisation benefits from having procedures for disputes and discipline (in the secular sense, such as addressing inappropriate or disruptive behaviour), which I will get on to shortly, but this applies to all sorts of decisions. A simple habit can be developed and maintained that minutes recording decisions be able to tell people what the decision was based on, what information went into the process, and what factors were considered, and that doesn’t even get onto the rationale, just the inputs. Sometimes there will be privacy and confidentiality concerns, in which case confidential minutes are an option, or a confidential annex, if minutes are routinely distributed within the Meeting, or redaction if a minute is being sent from one body (committee, Meeting, etc.) to another. Such confidential elements or redaction should be minimal, or the whole point of recording things more fully in minutes is defeated.
Those in the UK or EU should be aware that a data subject access request cannot be refused on grounds of confidentiality; minutes concerning an identifiable person must be provided to them on request, along with any notes concerning them, and all you can do is redact material that would compromise someone else’s privacy. Refusing to record things because it might be subject to a subject access request is not the intended result of these rights, and doing so just harms the organisation (and community) by removing the ability to understand what has happened, for the spurious benefit of stopping someone knowing what people were saying about them. It is reasonable to prevent them knowing specifically who is saying what about them, but only fair that they know what has been said – if only so that they have the opportunity to rebut it. Indeed, that is one of the principles that data protection upholds – that organisations using personal information (which is any information about a person) use accurate information. Even an opinion is personal information, and while a person cannot insist that the information be corrected as they can with plain facts, they can insist that their disagreement with the opinion be recorded and factored in when using the information.
There are two points at which you can refine your discernment practice so that your decision, as recorded in the minute, is more likely to be objectively rational – without damaging the principle of it being spirit led. The first is how information is presented, either in preparatory materials or in the introduction of the business item; the second is in drafting the minute. Both should be based on a solid rubric, which might be informed by organisational policies, the Wednesbury principles forming a good starting point, with some necessary additional elements that make it possible to follow. I would recommend you try to ensure the following, much of which will (in my experience) improve the quality of decision-making even if you do not produce a rational minute:
- Be clear what decision you are being asked to make, including (if there is a limited set of options) what all the options are in making that decision.
- Be
sure the information being used to make the decision is clearly
presented and understood by all, to the extent possible. This is
much easier with a small (or small-ish) committee than it is with a
larger meeting, such as an Area Meeting in session, but effort
should be taken to maximise understanding and clarity of information
in even the largest meeting.
- This can be made much easier by allowing time for questions and answers, and information from the floor, after the initial presentation of the item, and before discernment begins – which also cuts down on ‘ministry’ that is actually questions or additional information.
- It is also important to make sure that people have access to read relevant documents before discernment begins. This includes minutes received from a committee or other body. For short documents this could be done by distributing them at the meeting, though longer documents or those relating to matters that might cause someone to attend who otherwise would not, providing them in advance is very much desirable.
- This also applies to clarity of agendas, especially distributed in advance. An agenda that just says there is an update on a situation when in fact, at the meeting, there will be a substantive proposal made – especially about a person – then people are not adequately prepared.
- Of course, given the requirements of data protection, it should be clear to people receiving documents in advance and agendas that contain information about an identifiable person that they have been given these for a specific purpose, and that they should not be shared, or used for any other purpose.
- Before speaking, sit with your possible ministry for a while to be sure that you have – or will have, once you start speaking – all of it. Think about what you are being prompted to say, and try to understand what reasons may lie behind it. Relate it to the question the Meeting is being asked to determine and the information that you, as a group, have before you. Integrate that into your ministry, so the reasoning that the Spirit is leading you towards is more apparent.
To really satisfy the requirements of rational decision-making, with all the benefits to governance and communication described above, the minute also has to properly record these matters, and reflect the reason for the decision as clearly as possible. That doesn’t mean making an argument that the decision was the only one possible – remember, decisions involve judgement, weighing up the different factors, deciding which evidence or considerations are more compelling than others. A statement of a rational decision should thus cover what things were considered relevant, and can simply state the fact that the Meeting determined – by whatever means, including the urging of the Spirit – that a particular outcome is appropriate or a particular finding of fact is correct.
For example, it is not unusual for a Meeting to be deciding between two incompatible proposals from the community. They might be mutually incompatible for some fundamental reason, it being impossible to support two fundamentally opposite positions. They might be incompatible because the resources aren’t available for both – the use of a room, limited funds, limited volunteer time. The Meeting can reach its decision on almost any basis and it still be rational, as long as the basis is explained – the pros and cons of each option considered, weighed against one another, and the result of that weighing exercise stated.
In a more fraught example, a decision might actually need to determine some contested fact in order to be made fairly. If there is a dispute between two members of the community as to some event, and what action is to be taken depends whose story is accurate (if either are), the Meeting must determine the facts of the events. You can rarely be 100% sure of what really happened, and it might be that some details are left undetermined if they aren’t relevant to the final decision, but in such cases it is unfortunately common for a Meeting to come to whatever decision requires as little determination of the facts as possible. I don’t like to speculate on the reasons, but I think it is relevant that I have observed Friends to be very conflict-averse within our own communities.
(That said, be careful recording in minutes a statement of fact that is not very well-supported by evidence; courts can make findings of fact, stating things to be true that might turn out not to be, because that is their job. You could get in some trouble if you publish or record something that might be seen as defamatory. While you can proceed on the basis of the facts as you have determined them, you may wish to record them with some ‘weasel words’. For example, “having considered the information and evidence available to the Meeting, we proceed on the basis that…”. If you want to be even more careful, you could add “and without asserting that we are entirely correct” before “we proceed”.)
A rational minute, or an annex to it that is kept and distributed with the minute, should therefore include (where relevant to the question at hand):
- Background necessary to the understanding of the minute, which can include references to earlier minutes or minutes of other Meetings or committees (provided that those with access to your minute are likely to have access to those other minutes).
- The circumstances giving rise to the need for a decision – such as a proposal from the community, a communication from an external body, or some event that requires a reaction.
- The question, including what possible answers were available where this is a concise, limited set of possibilities. If the question is much more open, broad categories of response might be described.
- A description (but not a recitation) of the information and evidence before the meeting.
- Any conclusions made from this information and evidence that help lead to the decision.
- A description of the factors that were considered relevant, with a summary of how these are impacted by or impact upon each option. Even if only one option is considered (such as where there is a single clear proposal to accept or reject), the positives and negatives of agreeing, as revealed during the meeting, should be expressed.
- Which factors were determined to be of greatest weight in that particular case, ideally with some indication why – though it is okay to just say “in the judgement of the Meeting”, or even in that judgement “and through the guidance of the Spirit”.
- The actual decision made, along with any reasoning that isn’t self-evidence from the earlier points.
It isn’t necessary to put them in that precise order, but it is an order that I consider to be logical. There are times, however, when it is appropriate to put a summary – a ‘bottom line’ of the decision – after the description of the question before the Meeting and before the other material, with a more full description of the decision at the end.
Perhaps the best way to conclude this exploration of the combination of Quaker and rational decision-making is to give some worked examples. Let us begin with a simple scenario – a Meeting has members or attenders who travel to Meeting for Worship by train. For years, they have been able to get a train that will deliver them to the Meeting House 5-10 minutes before Meeting for Worship begins, and get a train home half an hour after it finishes. Then the train timetable changes. The Meeting decides, in Local Business Meeting, to change the time of Meeting for Worship to accommodate the change in train times.
It would not be unusual, in my experience, to end up with a minute similar to the following:
We have heard that a change in train times is making it difficult for some Friends to attend Meeting for Worship. We agree to move our Meetings for Worship to 10am to accommodate these Friends.
This is clearly not a rational minute; that does not mean to say that it is, in the vernacular sense, irrational, just that it does not allow people to understand what has gone into the decision except in a very basic and superficial sense. It lacks background, omits detail that might be useful later, and doesn’t indicate anything about countervailing considerations. Instead, the minute might go into great detail:
Until a recent change in train times, it was possible for Friends living in Nosuchtown to come to Meeting for Worship by train, arriving about ten minutes before Meeting for Worship began, and to get a train home half an hour after Meeting concludes.
RailwayCo has changed the times of their trains, and Friends in Nosuchtown can now only arrive in time for Meeting for Worship by arriving over half an hour in advance, and the choice of trains home after Meeting for Worship mean that they have to leave promptly, sometimes before notices are complete, or wait a further two hours.
A number of Friends living in Nosuchtown have asked if we might change the time of Meeting for Worship. If Meeting for Worship were to start at 10am rather than 10:30am, and remain the same duration, they would be able to travel more conveniently, arriving at a reasonable time and being able to enjoy some social time after meeting.
It was suggested that Friends in Madeupville, who currently drive to Meeting for Worship, might be able to collect Friends in Nosuchtown on their way to Meeting and return them on their way home. This was not felt to be practical.
It was also felt that we should be encouraging people to use public transport where possible, and some Friends expressed disapproval towards Friends driving from Madeupville, given the existence of suitable public transport.
However, we recognise that there are reasons that some Friends need to drive, and while we do advocate the use of public transport as an important aspect of our stewardship of the environment, we are not prepared to make any general statement approving or disapproving the use of private cars in any given instance.
Having considered advantages and disadvantages of the proposal, we agree to change the time of Meeting for Worship as proposed.
This is, frankly, excessive in a number of ways, and yet still omits some details that are helpful and help to understand the reasons for a decision. A good, rational minute might instead read:
At present, Sunday morning Meeting for Worship in Ourchester begins at 10:30am, typically ending at 11:30am, with notices usually finishing by 11:45 am followed by social time and refreshments.
Until recently, Friends in Nosuchtown have been able to travel by train, arriving at the Meeting House around 10:20am, and leaving around noon. However, train times have recently changed, and these Friends are now arriving not later than 10am, and must leave the Meeting House by 11:45 at the latest, unless they are willing to wait a further 90 minutes for a train home. As such, some Friends living in Nosuchtown have asked if Meeting for Worship might begin at 10am instead of 10:30am.
Lift-sharing was suggested as an alternative, but was felt to be an inadequate solution as it would make Friends in Nosuchtown entirely reliant on Friends in Madupville to be able to attend, and would not provide for any new attenders who might live in Nosuchtown.
We also considered the sustainability implications of different means of transport, but concluded that they were not relevant to this decision.
On the information before the Meeting, we determined that it is appropriate to make this change. Meeting for Worship will begin at 10am, usually conclude at 11am, with notices expected to last until up to 11:15am, followed by social time and refreshments.
However, we did consider it relevant that this may have adverse impacts on Friends not travelling from Nosuchtown. No-one present was able to provide any examples of such problems, other than that some people may need to get up earlier, and may not like to do so. However, we know that not all who attend Meeting for Worship attend Local Business Meeting, so this change will not take effect for two months. This planned change will be announced at Meeting for Worship and in our local newsletter, and comments or objections invited. We will revisit this matter at our next Local Business Meeting to consider any comments or objections that are raised, and decide whether to go ahead with this plan.
It is not accidental that the decision presented as rational is slightly different from the other examples; in order to be able to write a minute that properly sets out reasons, the process of discernment will more reliably touch on relevant matters that might be neglected, consider possibilities that are not immediately obvious. While the essential decision remains the same, it includes a very important caveat that will help ensure that the decision, when it is applied, is safer. Of course, if there had been clear information and consultation before the Local Business Meeting, letting people comment on the proposal in advance, this might not be needed – but some period of notice would still be appropriate.
In the more difficult case of a person being excluded from Meeting for Worship (and I wish to make it extremely clear that this is not based on any real example, and any similarities to such are purely coincidental – and given the range of likely reasons for such exclusion are limited, coincidence is likely, though I have taken some pains to make it less likely, leading to it being somewhat absurd), it would not be unusual to see a minute that is – quite deliberately – extremely terse. In these examples, it is to be assumed that the previous minute referenced is similar in style to the minute referencing it.
Concerning the matter of our Friend Bob Dobbs, as previously noted in Minute 2022.1.12, we have received a verbal report from local Elders. We accept their recommendation to exclude Bob Dobbs from Meeting for Worship and Local Business Meeting until such time as we are satisfied that his problematic behaviour will not be repeated.
The minute could, again, go into excessive – and, in such a situation, entirely inappropriate detail, while still omitting necessary rationale:
As previously noted in Minute 2022.1.12, several Friends have expressed concern about the behaviour of an attender, Bob Dobbs, during and after Meetings for Worship. Bob Dobbs has repeatedly offered questionable ministry advocating a spiritual approach related to ‘Slack’ and detailing the spiritual importance of several outlandish conspiracy theories, the precise details of which no-one has been able to make clear, despite repeated attempts to engage Bob on his beliefs.
While we accept that valid ministry may sometimes resemble proselytisation, the repeated, insistent and yet vague nature of this ministry has led several Friends to consider it disruptive and question whether it is truly prompted by the Spirit. Several Friends have engaged in research related to this ministry, and have found that similar ideas and language are present in a subversive ‘parody’ religion associated with anti-consumerist ideals and, in many cases, a degree of anarchism.
As a result of this, we asked Elders, in the aforementioned minute, to consider the matter. They have given a verbal report to Local Business Meeting, in which they explained their own research into the comments and ministry of Bob Dobbs, their decision to counsel Bob on the impact of his ministry, and support him in learning about the principles and practice of Quaker worship, including the testing of ministry in worship, their consideration of the report of the Elders who engaged Bob, their decision to frankly advise him that his behaviour was not acceptable and may lead to his exclusion from Meeting for Worship, and his refusal to commit to moderating his ministry and his statements outside of Meeting for Worship. In consequence, Elders have discerned that it is appropriate to exclude Bob from both Meeting for Worship and Local Business Meeting until such time as he is prepared to engage with Elders to remedy his behaviour.
Trusting our Elders to have correctly applied Quaker methods in coming to this decision, we accept their recommendation, and ask Elders to communicate this decision to Bob.
As I see it, a better rational minute may read:
We return to the matter of Bob Dobbs, an attender of our Meeting, as previously discussed in minute 2022.1.12. As noted in that minute, Bob has engaged in ministry that has caused others to question whether he is properly engaged in Quaker Worship, and has continued to espouse strange and unexplained views outside of Meeting for Worship, even when Friends have attempted to engage him and understand his perspective and beliefs. Some research into the terms he has used has raised questions as to the sincerity of his ministry, and of his professed beliefs. As such, Elders were asked to consider the matter, as it relates to the right ordering of Meeting for Worship and to the spiritual life of the Meeting and those who are part of our worshipping community.
Elders considered this matter, as documented in their minutes 2022.2.7 and 2022.3.3, appropriately redacted versions of which were distributed in advance of Local Business Meeting, along with a written report advising Friends of the steps they have taken and their recommendation. Those minutes and report are filed with these minutes. Elders confirmed that they have taken steps to be sure that Bob Dobbs was aware of this matter coming before Local Business Meeting again today, and of the content of their minutes and report.
Friends took particular notice of the evident fact, based on Elders’ reports of their engagement with Bob, that while he has never evaded a discussion or refused to talk about his beliefs or his ministry, Bob seems to be unwilling or, perhaps, unable to provide any helpful explanation that gives anyone a better understanding of what he has been saying or why. He has refused support in understanding Quaker spiritual teachings and the underpinnings of Meeting for Worship, and we note that he has not attended this Local Business Meeting to speak for himself, despite being aware of the agenda and what is proposed.
Elders have recommended that Bob be excluded from Meeting for Worship and Meeting for Worship for Business until such time as they are satisfied that he understands the nature of Quaker worship and is willing to behave in a way that is not disruptive to the Meeting or community.
We agree that Bob’s behaviour has been disruptive and should not be allowed to continue. However, we note that there may be a number of reasons for engagement from Elders having been unsuccessful, including potential personal conflict or personality clash with those involved. As such, we do not find it appropriate to leave the matter entirely in the hands of Elders. In addition, we note that there may be a number of reasons for Bob not having attended today or taken other steps to let his views be known.
If Bob is truly insincere and has been behaving in this way ‘for laughs’, we trust that this process will make him realise that the humour potential of his behaviour has been exhausted. If he is sincere, and wishes to engage as part of our Quaker community, he should be given further opportunities to remedy the situation, which he is unlikely to take up if he is not sincere.
As such, we agree that Bob Dobbs should, for the time being, be excluded from Meeting for Worship and Local Business Meeting, giving our clerks discretion to invite him for any business item that concerns him personally if they feel it appropriate. We ask that Overseers communicate this decision to him, in person if possible, and suggest to him the possibility of a Meeting for Clearness to explore these issues. Any such Meeting for Clearness should be composed of experienced Friends, including no more than one Elder who has been involved in considering this matter, at least one Overseer, and Bob should be invited to make suggestions as to Friends who he would be most comfortable work with, or those that he would be uncomfortable with.
If any such Meeting for Clearness is held, this exclusion may be revisited with a report from that meeting and any further information that is then available and relevant.
This minute is longer, but that is necessary in order to include a sense of the information in the reports, both to make the minute clearer in itself and to indicate what factors were seen as important by the Meeting. It also illustrates a different process before Local Business Meeting, and comes to a different conclusion as a result of that process and of approaching the matter in a way that facilitates a rational minute. I do not necessarily say that the different outcome is better, but it is what I believe is more likely in this slightly different scenario.
 |
| J. R. "Bob" Dobbs, prophet of Slack. Image trademark and copyright The Subgenius Foundation, Inc, used here on the basis of fair use/fair dealing. |
This has been an unusually long post, but I have decided not to split it into multiple posts because it is a cohesive whole, not something that could be split into semi-free-standing posts. It is also nowhere near as long as it could have been. Frankly, I could write a slim volume book on this topic – and if anyone thinks that’s a good idea and/or would like to collaborate on such a project, please do get in touch.
So, to summarise (and welcome to the people who clicked to skip the bulk of this post to get to the summary and recommendations), a few key points can be made. These are not in the order in which they may be found (expressly or by implication) in the foregoing exploration of issues, but in the order that seems to make the best sense read on their own.
- Decisions led by the Spirit can be presumed to have reasons, and we can expect, in general, to be able to discern those reasons as well as the result of the decision. It may take more effort or a change in processes, but it need not be difficult.
- Decisions reached through faithful discernment are not sacrosanct or unimpeachable, and two groups may come to different conclusions from the same information even if both practice flawless discernment. Even if that were not the case, discernment is rarely (if ever) practised in a way that comes close to being describable as ‘flawless’.
- There
are multiple good reasons to record reasons for decisions in
minutes, or if necessary in an annex to the minutes that is kept
with them. Some such reasons are:
- For good governance, to be able to understand a decision some time later, potentially several years (or even decades later).
- To be able to properly evaluate, in discernment, a recommendation from one body to another, such as a committee’s recommendation to a Meeting.
- To allow people to understand, and challenge (with good reason), decisions that concern them.
- Questions presented to the Meeting should be presented with appropriate context, factual background made clear, and opportunity given for questions and answers (ideally separate to the time and space given for ministry and discernment).
- Where there is disagreement as to facts, the disagreement must be clear and the Meeting must be prepared to determine its view of the facts in order to act appropriately based on them. Such determination should not be “avoided unless absolutely necessary”, but rather tend towards “made unless strictly unnecessary”. Avoidance of conflict cannot be allowed to override the making of fair end effective decisions.
- Ministry should be thoroughly tested and examined before being given, so that the person giving it can understand the reasoning to which the Spirit is leading them and communicate it, as best they can, in their ministry.
- A
rational minute (or annex attached to it as mentioned above) should
include, where applicable:
- Background necessary to understanding the minute and the circumstances of the question,
- The question and an idea of the possible answers,
- A description of the information and evidence before the Meeting, and conclusions reached from these that lead towards the decision. Care should be taken in phrasing conclusions, as there may be risks in presenting them as definite facts,
- What factors were relevant to the decision, how they relate to the possible answers, and what weight is attached to the different factors, and
- The actual decision reached, with any final reasoning needed to reach it from the information, evidence, conclusions and factors already described.
- If this leads to a minute that has a lot of material before the actual decision, a brief statement of the decision might be given earlier in the minute, with the fuller description of the decision at a more logical point.
There are examples above, in the conclusion section of the post.
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 or ‘buying me a coffee’ on Ko-Fi. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
