I have thought a lot about the so called “state” of the
Religious Society of Friends: whether we are in decline, whether our practices are
still relevant, and whether we have some inherent problems in the process of identifying
our leadership. These questions keep coming up so I will try to give one
perspective.
Full Disclosure
I spent a good part of two decades learning about, serving, and
volunteering for my Yearly Meeting. I have worked at almost every level
including as an alternate clerk of the Yearly Meeting. In recent years I have pulled away because,
simply put, things weren’t going well and I did not feel like I was
contributing to the solutions, only to the problems. Having written a number of
screeds that will likely never be read by anyone; I have been trying to get to
a place where I can share some helpful observations without succumbing to ego
driven condemnations. In essence I am trying to have an amicable divorce from
my Yearly Meeting where there are many people (including those I was in conflict
with) who I still love very much. My opinions are certainly colored by an
unsatisfying experience but hopefully I am now able to share something worthwhile
to these concerns which are shared by many devout Quakers.
First: Is the Religious
Society of Friends in decline?
Obviously I cannot speak for all of Quakerism, but I can
share what I have seen happening in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. During my
experience since 1987, we have been in a continual struggle to address fears about numbers. The most frequent questions asked at our annual
sessions have been:
1.
How
can we attract more young people?
2.
Why
can’t we get our Monthly Meetings and their members to give more money beyond
our annual covenant to support the work of our Yearly Meeting?
3. Why can’t we get more people to
volunteer for Yearly Meeting standing committees, working groups, and positions
of leadership?
Certainly during discernment efforts we have asked how Spirit
was leading us. But those three questions were the most consistent topics of
concern even above and beyond our concerns for peace and environmental
stewardship. These topics are certainly common to any religion today,
particularly here in the United States. And, there are all kinds of excuses
about them. The questions show that we are more focused on practical matters
and less on matters of the Spirit. And, yes, they are evidence of a declining
organization.
So what? The more we focus on our decline and those three
related questions, the less attention we give to listening to that of God in
one another and acting with love and integrity. They shouldn’t be mutually
exclusive, but because they are based in fear they are lacking in faith. They
corrupt our good intentions. They corrupt our ability to act with love. The
corrupt our understanding of God’s call to us.
Second: Are the
practices of the Religious Society of Friends still relevant?
Another consistently expressed fear of Friends is that we
have fewer long time Quakers and a greater percentage of new ones - who do not
fully understand our practices and who misinterpret them to mean that we can
easily change them. There is an apprehension of losing our traditions, of
becoming more of a like-minded social club than a religious society.
In my experience the practice of discernment by the sense
of the meeting in worship is still a relevant and powerful experience among
Friends. It is central to who we are. Many meetings struggle to teach new
attenders about how this works, but when they do, attenders who become members are
more likely to embrace the practice than try to change it. It takes patience
and intentional friendly attention.
However I, and many others, have come to the conclusion
that this form of decision making (Quaker Process) works best in local Meetings
and committees made up of the people who have to actually do the work or live
into the decision being made. It does not work well with representative bodies.
Too often we see decisions by Quarterly and Yearly Meetings enthusiastically
embraced by those present at the business meeting and completely rejected by congregations
at home. The process alone is not the problem. It is the scope and type of work we are attempting to do in these representative bodies. Our missions have become too complex and disconnected from the needs and leadings of our congregations.
This reality combined with questions about decline causes
us to question of the role of representative bodies within our society. What is
their purpose? They are most relevant and effective when they serve as a
network for fellowship and common leadings, and as a source of education about
the ways of Friends. Quakers have long rejected hierarchical organizations.
From the beginning the philosophy has been to be organic, adaptable, and
locally autonomous, in our structures. In other words responsive to God's continuing revelations.
Older Yearly Meetings like the one in Philadelphia have
the added problem that they have old money in restricted trusts and old buildings
to maintain. You need professional volunteers with the education of an
accountant and an attorney to understand and make informed decisions about
these. That work does not necessarily excite most people and seems far removed
from the reasons they belong to the Religious Society of Friends: our meetings
for worship; pastoral fellowship; and like minded leadings about theology, peace, justice,
and stewardship.
Third: Do we have inherent
problems in the process of identifying our leadership?
In a word - yes. Too often our nominating
committees are forced to fill positions of leadership based on an exhaustive search
just to find willing volunteers. They rarely have the luxury of choosing
between individual candidates’ spiritual and leadership talents. Recognizing
the difficulties they face, the recommendations of these committees are usually
accepted without challenge. These things come up in our annual schedules in
such a fashion that there is really little time to object and request an
alternative name. So trust, faith, and term limits are required.
Unfortunately in many cases we burn
out these willing victims or they stay way too long in their positions because
no one else will step up to take a turn. Circumstances both within and beyond our
control have led our Yearly Meetings to neglect developing an intentional
Spirit-led approach to leadership choice and accountability. Likewise Monthly
Meetings, doing the best they can, have been unable to commonly make specific efforts
to nurture and encourage spiritual leadership among us. Some Meetings are
better at this than others, but this does not seem like a very good way to
choose our leaders; especially for a society who values intention and accountability
as highly as we do.
Are
there any solutions?
As a died-in-the-wool Quaker, my
leadings always bring me back to our form of worship where we gather in silent expectation
of God’s revelations to us. Our weekly worship is at the heart of all we do. It
is what defines us as a religious society as opposed to an activist
organization. Simply listening for God has been our clarion call since 1652.
God has been and continues to call us to focus on our worship and on being in faith
community with each other. We can best support our activists answering a
leading to work for peace, justice, and an earth restored, by giving them
strong stable spiritual homes. Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings should set
aside their efforts to build or maintain organizations and concentrate on worship,
and on providing religious education and a supportive network of spiritual
fellowship.
Some will say - “That is what we have
been doing. These things have evolved taking the form of more and more complex
organizations.” This brings to mind the Bauhaus philosophy of design: “Form follows function.” The forms we
have created no longer function as leadings of the Spirit. It is time to
simplify. Get back to our center: our worship and our love of that of God in
each other. Rather than worrying about our decline we should embrace a receding complexity. We can do that by making our communities welcoming to all and simplifying our mission to: worship, religious education, and fellowship.
Quakers at all meeting levels need to develop a more intentional model for recognizing and nurturing leadership and an accountable process for naming clerks and other positions. There is perhaps not a one size fits all solution. But some gifted friends should gather and come up with some real word strategies that our faith communities can use.
Change is not an easy process. Like any growing
it is painful. I am watching from the sidelines for now as my Yearly Meeting
tries to do these things. I am not sure when or if I will ever again have any
significant gifts to offer them. They have given me much. I continue to hold
them affectionately in the Light.