Quaker Business Method and Rational Decision-Making

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”.

Revision: A Reaction to the Decision

As readers of my blog, or indeed those who keep up with Quaker matters in Britain at all, will be aware, this weekend Britain Yearly Meeting met in session, with the principal matter on the agenda being the proposal to revise the YM's Book of Discipline, Quaker faith & practice. This was proposed at Yearly Meeting Gathering four years ago, but Friends were unable to come to unity; instead, it was decided that a group be appointed to help prepare the Yearly Meeting to be better able to take the decision in either direction, and to lay the groundwork for future revision whenever it might occur.

This group, the catchily-named Book of Discipline Revision Preparation Group (BoDRPG is how I abbreviate this; it seems that BYM decided the appropriate revision would just be RPG, which I suppose is not too ambiguous in context – even if it makes me think of Final Fantasy or Dungeons & Dragons), has been working hard for over three years. They have been working out logistics, engaging in explorations of theology, and running the Reading Quaker faith & practice programme to encourage Friends to be more familiar with the existing text before trying to make the decision again.

That preparation has borne fruit, with – by all reports that have come my way – an amazingly positive and constructive approach to the question at Yearly Meeting. The decision was taken, with suitable commentary in the minute instructing Meeting for Sufferings, and the to-be-appointed revision committee, about the approach that Yearly Meeting feels they should take.

(Buckle up, this is going to be a long one)

Why Quakers Say "Hope So"

When Pandora opened the box,
Elpis - hope - remained within.

One of the things that people often learn about Quakers, when they learn a few disjointed and poorly explained bits and bobs, is that we “don't vote”. Aside from clearing up the confusion in terms of public elections, this is something that takes some explaining. I remember when I was grilling the first Quaker I met, who didn't seem given to in-depth explanations at the time, she explained that people said “hope so” if they agreed with what was proposed. I asked what they said if they didn't agree, and she clearly couldn't see a way to answer without a deeper explanation. All these years later, now I understand what a difficult position that was, for a Friend who doesn't want to launch into a long and detailed exposition of how Quakers make collective decisions.

Still, “hope so” is an important part of the Quaker liturgy (in Britain, at least), and part of the way our use of language makes it hard for newcomers to understand what's going on. I've written before that we should question such jargon, but saying “hope so” in response to the clerk offering a minute isn't just jargon. It isn't a Quaker code. It is a very meaningful use of language – though that may not be obvious to those new to our way of doing things.

In this post, I will be exploring the Quaker Business Method with specific reference to how a decision is concluded, and a minute agreed. What does it mean when the clerks offer a minute? Why is our traditional response “hope so”, rather than “yes”, when asked if the minute is acceptable? It's not a simple matter, even assuming a basic familiarity with Quaker practices and processes.

Testing Ministry part 2: Business

In my earlier post, I explored the idea of testing ministry in Meeting for Worship, and outlined some simple tests that I find helpful when testing ministry. I also mentioned that these were only readily applicable in simple, undirected worship, and other sorts of meeting in which we might minister need to be handled differently. In this post I will explore the most common other sort of meeting, the “Meeting for Worship for Business”, often shortened to “Business Meeting”, and known formally in Quaker faith & practice as “Meetings for Church Affairs”.

These meetings are the primary decision-making organ of Quaker bodies, from our Local and Area Business Meetings, to Britain Yearly Meeting in session, and all of the business meetings to run all sorts of other groups. It is probably helpful at this point to quickly recap the essential principles and process of the Quaker business method, though a full exploration would certainly merit a post all to itself.

So, let us take a theoretical, idealised Meeting for Worship for Business. Any given “real world” case will deviate from this, but in various different ways depending on the meeting, so the platonic version seems a good starting point. The meeting in session is a number of Friends, probably in the small dozens – to avoid any of the complications brought by a particularly large or small group. One or two Friends undertake to clerk the meeting, and sit at a table where they can see everyone. Everyone else sits arranged in such a manner to be able to see as many of the rest of the meeting as reasonably possible. The clerk introduces an item of business, a decision that needs to be taken. The clerk will introduce the business, perhaps with the help of another Friend who is familiar with the matter in question. The decision to be taken will be made clear to Friends, and all necessary information will be provided at this time, or even better in advance of the meeting (this being a point where pretty much every real world case will depart drastically from the ideal, but it is a complication that is besides the point of this post). At that point, the meeting begins discernment – a period of worship focussed on making a decision.