Status, Power, and Betrayal of the Spirit

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.

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.

The Sanctity of Discernment?

A bench in the Meeting House at Scattergood Friends School,
Iowa. Photo by David Morris, used under CC-BY 2.0 license.

Discernment, the process of making decisions or otherwise being guided by the Spirit (usually through the Quaker Business Method), is extremely important to Quakers. It is probably the most significant practical application of faith among liberal Friends – our faith that we will be guided, our faith that we have faithfully discerned that guidance. In both a practical and emotional sense, it is one of the most fundamental cornerstones of our faith tradition.

It is also, though we may hate to admit it, a source of difficulty. For if a decision or statement, a determination or a course of action, is based on divine guidance, who can gainsay it?

Yet is something, once discerned, settled for all time? Plainly not, or the history of our Religious Society could not be as it is. And indeed, two Meetings might be approaching the same question at the same time, be in very similar traditions, even be part of the same Yearly Meeting – or even some closer association, such as Local Meetings in the same Area Meeting, in the organisational structure of Britain Yearly Meeting, or Monthly Meetings in the same Quarter as some other Yearly Meetings arrange things. They might be close neighbours in close accord on many things, both faithfully follow our business method regarding the same question, and reach different conclusions. How can this not call into question our faith – our trust in this process, in the guidance of the Spirit – indeed, call it into question at its very foundations?

On Titles

One of the little details of Quaker practice that is not completely unheard of outside of Quaker circles – though that does not mean it is well-known – is our rejection of titles. That is to say, we traditionally do not use such things as “Mr”, “Mrs”, “Miss” etc., preferring to simply use names.

There are several reasons behind this. One is our view of equality; especially in the society in which the Quaker movement developed, a huge range of titles existed and reinforced the expected structure of society, of social interactions, and of status. Nobility was still considered important by many, and the titles of right or of courtesy that went with them were often insisted on. Titles and styles related to offices under the crown, such as “judge” or “doctor” (usually for those who have achieved a certain degree of study – academic doctors or doctors of divinity – rather than physicians) were important, and people of standing who could claim neither noble nor official title often sought a knighthood. Those entitled to the style of “esquire”, not a general formal term as it is now in the UK, nor a term conventionally restricted to certain professions as it is now in the US, would often insist upon its use. As such, the rejection of titles stands for a rejection of the formal and conventional delineations of standing and status, as well as of the forms that derive from them (such as the giving of hat-honour, one of the most noted rejections of convention among early Friends).

Vulnerability, Power, Love

I wasn't at Yearly Meeting in 2015, nor the Swarthmore Lecture given at it. I have read the minutes, however, and minute 36 gave me some trouble. I understand it was somewhat derived from the Swarthmore Lecture, Faith, Power and Peace, but I shan't judge the lecture on that; I am sure it had more nuance.

What I struggled with was the idea of power linked to vulnerability. As a disabled person, and knowing many other disabled people, including all forms of disability – chronic illness, mental illness, everything – I have trouble with that. Vulnerability can lead to power, certainly, but the minutes seemed to suggest that it was a more reliable consequence than is found in my experience, first- and second-hand. Vulnerability is often characterised by profound powerlessness.

Yet I see now one situation in which the link of power and vulnerability is utterly true, and inescapable. It is not in our interactions with the world at large, it is not in our ability to make the world a better place in general. It is not economic or political. It is personal.