Nominations, Mandates, Power and Service

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.

Equality Is More Than Equal Treatment

Equality is one of the most consistent values across the world family of Friends, and has a long and proud history as a Quaker value. Early Friend recognised the essential spiritual equality of men and women, and of rich and poor. Of course, there were hiccups on the way; Quakers were slower than we like to admit to recognise the evil of slavery, and meetings for church affairs (aka business meetings) were long segregated by gender. Still, the essential idea of equality, while it might not always have been as strongly held as it is today, is an important Quaker tradition, and is recognised as a core Quaker testimony by all groups of Friends that make lists of such (at least as far as I am aware).

What do we mean by equality? Equality before God was certainly always an important idea for Quakers, with no ordained clergy. There were those known as ministers, but this was a description of what they did more than who they were. They travelled in the ministry, held public meetings aiming to convince those outside of the Quaker fold, and developed reputations for inspired and powerful ministry in worship. For this, they were known as ministers, but this was essentially a recognition of certain gifts and activities, rather than giving them any authority. The source of authority remained the Spirit itself, and that dwelt equally in all.

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)

Dread of Nominations

"Has the person from nominations gone yet?"

Being approached by nominations should be a joy. Your Friends have discerned that you are the right person to carry out the work of your Meeting. Your gifts and potential have been recognised, even those you might not have suspected. It would thus be a validation, as well as a serious divine summons.

And yet, we often treat it with dread, a half-joking veneer covering a more profound discomfort. We worry we will become overburdened, and though we may try to hide it, we doubt the hand of the Divine behind the nomination when it reaches us.

Our nominations committees are asked to do so much with so little. How can we help but be concerned that the pressure will lead to a slackening of discipline, desperation leading the Friends responsible to simply trying to fine someone?

It is a situation that feeds on itself; the more we worry about nominations, the greater the forces that give cause for worry. How can we break the cycle?

Written January 2018

Dogmatic Non-Dogmatism and Rituals of Non-Ritualism

Why the flowers?

Quakers, at least of the liberal variety, are generally considered to have no dogma; Quakers of all stripes reject creeds, even if they have been known to organisationally endorse documents that look a lot like them. Unprogrammed Quakers eschew ritual.

But do we really? Are there not ways in which our non-dogmatism becomes dogmatic, and our non-rituals become ritualistic? In this post I will be exploring these questions, what I have learned from Friends in many places, what I have experienced myself – and what I think we should take from that.

Trusting the Discernment of Others

You are responsible for your decisions, even where they are
confirming the decision of others.

Trusting the discernment of other Friends does not mean accepting it without question. Where a matter comes before you that has already been considered by another group, in Quaker discernment, due regard must be given to the fact that they have attempted to follow the guidance of the Divine – but you must also give the Divine the opportunity to guide you. Where a committee recommendation, or a nomination, comes before you, do not assume that the discernment of the committee is the last word. Give enough space and time for ministry to arise and be tested before accepting such matters, as it may be that the Spirit did move those who met on the matter already to make their proposal or their nomination – but the Spirit will not move you to accept it. Sometimes the fact of the proposal or nomination reaching your Meeting is what the promptings of the Divine have led to, and that is sufficient.

Written December 2017

Understanding and Trusting Quaker Nominations

Nominations is one of the more mysterious, and in my experience often mistrusted, processes in the world of Quakers. A relatively small number of Friends go into a room, and comes out with a list of who should be fulfilling which role in their Meeting. They pounce on unsuspecting Friends, or possibly just send them an email, letting them know that the committee has discerned their name for some terrifying, or just unexpected, role, demanding to know whether the Friend is willing and able to take on that role.

Well, that's a bit of a caricature, but I'm sure most experienced Friends recognise that image of nominations. It's also likely that a fair proportion of experienced Friends have served on a nominations committee or other nominating group at some point, though not everyone ever does – quite rightly, as not everyone really has the requisite gifts, just like not everyone is suited to being a treasurer or clerk, or elder.

There are all sorts of variations in nominations practice, some of which are necessary, or at least logical and reasonable, adaptations to circumstance. Some are innovations that are in keeping with the essential principles of Quaker nominations, and some are, frankly, compromises of those principles in the name of expediency. In this post I will explore what I consider to be the essential principles of Quaker nominations, both spiritual and practical, and how they can be implemented in such a way that it maximises the trust that Friends not on the nominating committee can have in the process.