When programs drown out ministries
Last night I took advantage of an opportunity to stay late in the city to attend mid-week worship at a place I'll call Meeting A (a thin disguise, but I don't want this post to be about this particular meeting). Attendance was low, the worship never felt grounded and the one piece of vocal ministry didn't speak to my condition. I came expecting all this but the behavior after the rise of meeting surprised me. The greeter asked a member to provided ten minutes of information about someone never identified who was engaged in a ministry shrouded in never-defined Quaker acronyms. This done, we were dismissed without even so much as a go-round of names. A few people beat feet for the door and others beat feet for their friends, backs turned to the newcomer.
There's an irony in that this particular meeting was one of the targets of a multi-year yearly meeting campaign to field-test outreach ideas. Elaborate surveys, meeting self-evaluations and outside outreach mentors focused on six meetings. Gallons of ink continue to be spilt in yearly meeting publicity material about the program, yet after all years of attention no one at Meeting A apparently knows how to say "hello and howdido" to a stranger at mid-week worship. The failure of the the meeting's outreach efforts seem pretty obvious: no one there cared about who a stranger was, why he had come, whether he had been to a Quaker Meeting before or might have any questions. No one gave the stranger any reason to ever come back.
About a year ago I had the opportunity to sit in on Meeting A's religious education committee meeting. An exciting proposal for an adult R.E. program to attract newcomers was whittled down as every possible time for it was blocked by various committee meetings. There's nothing the dying meeting needed more than fresh blood yet it fiercely prioritized an over-elaborated committee structure that left no room for either outreach.
The tyranny of programs
One thing I've been noticing lately is that many Friends try to use ambitious programs to achieve goals that are better met through simple ministries. Meeting A needs someone who holds a concern for friendliness. I'm sure there's someone at the meeting carrying this gift; they could be identified and named. The Friend could be released from all committee work (gasp!) and given the simple permission to be friendly to newcomers and to any who might feel like outsiders to the meeting. They could hold the concern for friendliness and outreach at business meeting and gently labor with the meeting about the issues learned from befriending the newcomers. One or two people who faithfully held this as a calling could change the history of the meeting.
Part of this is a need to examine our dependence on committees. Meeting A is extreme but many Friends spend so much time in insider-focused committee meetings that they have little time to do much else. Why does the typical Quaker meeting have so many committees? Let's take the ubiquitous peace and social concern committee. Why don't rising concerns and ministries on social issues get brought to the ministry & council/overseers/elders and treated as any other leading? Meeting committees are often less interesting than the people in them. Many committees exude a chronic sense of being overburdened and actively resist taking on new leadings (in practice, this means that exciting ideas from younger Friends are routinely shut out,).
Why not release individual Friends to their leadings, with meeting testing and oversight and an open-ended possibility that leadings might come over time to be held by the meeting at large? Devolve some of the committee structure with a faith that the work that wouldn't be picked up is the work we don't need to be doing anyway. How amazing would it be to see a flowering of ministries or to see a whole meeting take on a homegrown concern? And how precious would it be if more individual Friends felt the encouragement to simply go up and talk to strangers at mid-week worship?
21 Comments
Leave a comment
About Martin
I’m a Quaker from
South Jersey with a love of
outreach and ministry.
More bio and my contact information in my
about Martin
post.
Martin's other sites:
Feed Subscription:
You can also sign up to get daily posts delivered by email. Enter email address:
Dear Martin,
This reminds me of why I gushed so much about your site when I first found it. You take ideas I've been rambling about and articulate them clearly.
For example, "someone who holds a concern for friendliness." This is a phrase I've been looking for. It's helps me explain what I've been trying to describe what our Welcoming Committee needs. Instead, the main criteria has been "not afraid of homeless people." Which is also important, but not the most important thing.
"Why not release individual Friends to their leadings, with meeting testing and oversight and an open-ended possibility that leadings might come over time to be held by the meeting at large?" I think some of the Meetings in my Quarter are already doing. Chris M. wrote about it a little bit.
"Devolve some of the committee structure with a faith that the work that wouldn’t be picked up is the work we don’t need to be doing anyway." Can I quote you at my next M&O meeting?
What can I say...? My experience is a mirror of your own... with the exception that even as a newcomer to a midweek worship or other small gathering of Friends, I'll assert myself and ask that we introduce ourselves. It simply seems like it's in plain good order to do so, newcomer or not. (Of course, a non-Quaker newcomer may not be so assertive--maybe that's your point!)
About a year ago, I had a conversation with the then-clerk of the monthly meeting's committee for peace and social action. Out of curiosity, I asked the Friend to describe to me how a concern or issue comes before the committee and before the meeting.
As I heard the Friend out, I summarized what I had heard--that the committee acts like a clearness committee, helping individual Friends test if they have a leading to bring something before the committee, as opposed to having the committee come under the weight of the concern and bring it as >their concern to the meeting. The Friend agreed with me, that that was how things operated.
It's been a continuing process for me to understand how much I attribute such committee behavior to "that's the way it's done at this meeting" and how much I should challenge a process that is drifting from more traditional forms of corporate discernment...
Well, enough said for the time-being.
Blessings,
Liz, The Good Raised Up
Hi Liz: yes, I certainly could have stepped in and shown some leadership in light of the meeting's over-casualness toward newcomers. As someone who does actually holds these concerns, I had a responsibility to seriously consider intervening.
I didn't say anything in part because of morbid curiosity. Would they really end it without any kind of welcoming? If I stayed in the room after the rise of worship would anyone turn from their insider group to acknowledge my presence, thank me for my attendance, etc.? There are also times when I feel I'm led to witness something and not act. I was being given a lesson and my responsibility is to watch, pray and study on it. Articulating it on a blog and getting comments from dear Friends is part of that process.
Because of rearranged family schedules I actually have the opportunity to start attending the mid-week worship regularly. For the last few years I've been feeling a concern to 1) have more corporate Quaker worship in my life (I only get to meeting every two weeks); and 2) see if I can't help re-create a bit of this blogging community in real life in Center City Philadelphia. A steady trickle of Friends is constantly visiting this mid-week worship but most drop away for what now seem like obvious reasons. You can't change a meeting that doesn't want to change but I'll probably go back and see. I might make a nuisance of myself yet.
--
Robin: There were a couple of stories I was going to tell as part of this post, cut out because I wanted to stay with the heart of the matter. One is a story I know mostly second-hand from another Philadelphia Meeting, let's say Meeting C. A member picked up the concern that they weren't being as friendly as they could and ran with it. She did a great job until she left or died (this was before my time). The meeting felt the hole and replaced her ministry with a Welcoming Committee that never matched the zest or fire of that former member.
The story reminds me very much of one Thomas Hamm tells of a rural Indiana's reaction to the death of its powerhouse of a recorded minister in the late 1800s. The meeting hadn't taken care to name new gifts or nurture any younger members in the ministry and no one was prepared to step into her shoes. Faced with the loss, it hired a part-time pastor to fill the space (if I remember correctly the pastor wasn't a Quaker, wasn't trained as a Friend, had little patience for Friends' ways and gave sermons steeped in Calvinist theology). How might Philadelphia Meeting C's switch to the programming of a Welcoming Committee be analogous to the Indiana meeting's switch to pastoral worship?
Martin, nice additional stories and examples in response to Robin's comment. ...I would also suggest that such is what happens when there is no consideration of whether a meeting should come under the weight of a Friend's concern.
If that consideration and discernment process is dismissed in favor of--or out of convenience of--supporting an individual Friend's leading, then I imagine that the meeting would feel little or no spiritual directive to carry that leading when the Friend is no longer around to serve.
Or, if the meeting does feel such a spiritual directive, the sense of urgency may drive the meeting to a hurried decision rather than a grounded, Spirit-led one. We can't assume that the (round) hole left by an individual can simply be filled with any ol' (square) peg--yet the actions of our business sessions sometimes reveal where our corporate values really are, sadly.
One thing I find myself often speaking about among liberal Friends is what is meant by the concept of a meeting "coming under the weight of a concern."
So I am again holding the question: What would have happened if no meetings had come under the weight of Woolman's concern? Would it have been enough if this one individual had dwelt under the exercise of laboring with Friends and others around the concern of holding slaves?
Blessings,
Liz, The Good Raised Up
Preach it Brother Martin!!! We Quakers are sometimes our own worst enemy. We are fortunate to have a wonderful Meeting here where folks are warmly welcomed. And guess what? We are growing. It doesn't take much to seek out the stranger in your midst and welcome him or her, offer them a pamphlet, maybe a cup of coffee and show interest in their lives.
Ya know, all my life I've heard about Sodomy. Wasn't until recently that I found out Sodomy had little or nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with not being hospitable. Let's purge Sodomy from our Meetings! Radical hospitality...it's not just for Southerners anymore :-).
God's peace,
Craig
If we did have meetings coming under the sort of concerns we're talking about I think we'd find that they would each develop a distinct character. Just as individuals all share different gifts so too might meetings. Although it's up for meetings to do the corporate discernment themselves, I often wonder what specific meetings might do.
For example, Meeting C (mentioned above) is a downtown urban meeting with a lot of professional Quakers among the formal membership. It also attracts a steady stream of new transient attenders--college students, young Friends come to Philadelphia for internships, etc. I have known so many older Friends who attended this meeting for a period in their 20s, for a lot of Friends this was the first meeting they walked into. What if Meeting C took educating its transient seekers as its primary mission. What if it took all of those experienced Quaker professionals and put them to work leading continuous Quakerism 101 classes, book groups, study sessions, etc? It would be a win-win situation: the class of professional Quakers would be routinely shaken out of the routines of "incestuous amplification":http://www.nonviolence.org/martink/how_insiders_and_seekers_use_the_quaker_net.php, which would surely help them make better decisions. And we'd be sending transients off to the four corners of North American Quakerism with a much less random grounding in faith, practice and culture. How cool would that be?
Similiarly, my Meeting, which I'll call Meeting AC (my disguises are getting thinner in every comment), has had a concern laid before its doors too many times. A frighteningly large number of its children have been killed or seriously injured in car accidents. What if the Meeting took that on as a concern, looking at our culture's car dependence, or the inadequate planning of our rapidly-growing exurban areas? Think what it would mean for attendance if county residents saw a group of committed, spirit-led Friends seriously following this concern?
The meeting I'm attending these days has a more-or-less explicit concern for what it dubs "teaching ministries" (which is why I'm going there). What if all of our meetings examined their gifts, followed their callings and sought to see if there's some specific part of the Quaker concern they might be led to specialize in?
I confess: I would have done the same thing. That is, I would not have said anything to see what happened especially given all of the energy, attention, money, etc. used to assist a Meeting like itself to be more welcoming. Sometimes the message comes very quietly and it's up to those being "messaged" to pick up the subtle hint. :)
Likewise, I understand where Liz is coming from. I feel as if some Meetings already do a lot to support individual Friends' "concerns" and "callings" while disregarding the Meeting as a community. It would be great to see committees come to the larger meeting with something they felt God was leading the Meeting to do.
My sense is that you, Martin, are trying to address the issue clearly and simply without the need for another commmittee to mull, I mean, sit in the Silence over it. Perhaps you were thinking about individual leadings regarding the specific issue of outreach? By the way, I like your last comment about more experienced Friends doing ongoing Quaker 101 outreach to newcomers and the "transients".
I wonder if this whole issue also involves that YM's have little to no direct influence on local Meetings? Can you imagine 1.) a YM sending a minute to Meetings stating it was the leading of the Spirit for all Meetings to work toward more outreach - and then, 2.) the majority of local Meetings trusting this leading and then seeking God's help to follow through with it?
Oh, Utopia!
:)
Nice to see a blog post, Martin. Always stimulating and always includes great comments (not necessarily meant regarding my own).
First, Martin, thanks for the insightful post. Like Robin M. and our Ministry & Oversight Committee, I'm considering whether to share this with our Nominating Committee. At our first meeting two weeks ago of the new committee for 2006, I seriously raised the question of whether we have too many committees. I have to credit Robin with the original idea, which we fleshed out together in a long car ride a while back.
One part of the argument is that if you have fewer committees, you need fewer competent clerks (something we seem to be running out of as several Friends have moved elsewhere in the last few years). The response was tepid, at best: "Then each committee clerk would have too much to do." Well, then let's look at what we're asking the committees to do! And if the committees were fewer but bigger and actually meeting, they might be more robust.
Second, thanks to Robin for the plug to my blog. In this context, the particular post about structuring peace & social concerns committees worth referencing directly. The post is directly from a workshop at our Quarterly Meeting, led by the current (and very spiritually weighty, in my humble opinion) clerk of Pacific Yearly Meeting: Click here.
Hi Joe: Oh no, not top-down concerns dictated from the yearly meeting. I guess in theory this might be fine but... Every so often the entity I'll call Yearly Meeting Phila sends down issues it thinks all the monthly meetings should focus on. It usually only gets the most perfunctory of approvals. I've not seen any of these get real monthly meeting "buy-in." They're less "concerns" than "causes," a distinction I make not because of the issue involved but because of the depth of discernment and support. Remember that one such edict from above was the outreach program, which the meeting I attended the other night did official sign off on.
When a monthly meeting recognizes a concern in an individual it should also ask itself whether this is a concern that the meeting might hold itself. Often it won't be, or won't be yet. We want it to be a real process. We don't want the meeting to write up some minute about how welcoming folks is good and then move onto the next piece of business.
Martin - as always, straight to the heart of the matter - nice one!
I think we need to remember this is the the Religious Society of FRIENDS - Friendship has its ups and owns, but its really about the great business of being in contact with each other - fun! Frolics! Laughter!
Keep it up brother.
I think I have a different sense of Quaker corporate discernment than what is expressed above. It does not consist primarily in bringing the group around to the individual's concern--"under the weight," in the lingo. If there is a genuine flame that emerges from the spark of a Friends' concern, this is lovely. But what if this is not the case? What if the individual's concern is not the group's concern? How should the group respond?
My sense is, if a Friend's individual leading seems genuine, the meeting should support that person in their leading, but not *necessarily* take it on as its own. In the rare case that the leading does not seem genuine, or in the spirit, the meeting should consider gently bringing this to the individual Friend's attention.
For better or worse, traditional corporate Quaker discernment was developed not primarily to get the meeting to support individual leadings, but to correct those who were presumed to be following false leadings--"disorderly walkers" as they were sometimes called. The circumstances of James Nayler's downfall brought this practice about more than anything.
It occasionally happens that a meeting catches fire with a concern brought by an individual Friend, and this can be a lovely thing to behold. But this is not the meeting's essential role. Nor, in my opinion, is it wise to be bothered or offended when such a fire does not catch. Faithfulness means continuing one's ministry; if it is the right ministry, it will eventually bear fruit. At least, this is the Quaker assumption. John Woolman was both patient and faithful. It took a long time before Quakerism came fully "under the weight" of his concern about slavery.
Hi Martin
As head of Nominating Committee heading into nominating season, I'm going to take some of your ideas to my team to see how they respond. Assigning one person to "hold a concern for friendliness to newcomers" would probably go over very well. So would nominating people to "Released to follow leadings as called." I think it would add a very spirit-led element to the nominations.
Thanks.
Glad to be able to catch up on these comments, everyone.
I want to clarify my earlier comment, to which Martin and James allude. I did not mean to imply that meetings should respond only to those leadings for which they might come under the weight of. Likewise, as James points out, meetings might test whether or not a Friend's leading is authentic (i.e. Spirit-led), but again: the meeting may not be led to come under the weight of the leading/ministry/concern.
At the same time, as Martin writes: Just as individuals all share different gifts so too might meetings.
I don't believe it has to be one or the other: It certainly can be both, that a meeting may have a particular ministry to provide and there may be an opportunity for the meeting to come under the weight of a concern.
For example: I have often felt that one of the ministries of the monthly meeting I occasionally attend is the hospitality offered to GLBTQ Friends and their families. But this ministry--stated or unstated--does not preclude the meeting from getting under the weight, say, of participating in a certain peace vigil or other social-justice related event.
Blessings,
Liz, The Good Raised Up
I am very interested by this post and the ensuing conversation. So far in my (short) life as a Friend, I've released myself to follow leadings as called, simply by shying away from committees because I haven't felt called to any definite ministry or mission, and because I recognize a very strong streak of people-pleaser in myself, and would be apt to do just about anything anyone asked me to.
I'm very interested especially in the idea of "holding a concern for friendliness". Right now as a resident of the Friend's Center, though this is not "my" meeting at the moment, I do feel a strong concern to welcome and love the people who come to the Friends Center. I make tea for people after midweek meeting, and I make an effort not to stay in my rooms but to share my time and maybe some cobbler with anyone who might be passing through the meeting. I've been wondering about the difference between "a ministry" in some formal sense, and just plain old "sharing God's love" in a way that flows naturally from one's personality or inclinations. of course there is overlap, but I wonder if there is something different or more specific that we are defining as "ministry". For example, I don't think I'd need a clearness committee or a nomination to be a loving or hospitable person. Or do I?
All that said, this meeting actually has a very wonderful and active fellowship and outreach committee. The only flaw is in the size of the meeting...it's hard to keep track of who the newcomers are. Fellowship and Outreach, as well as individual members of the meeting have been warmly welcoming me and asking me if this is my first meeting ever since I arrived in July. (evil grin)
Amanda, just today I read a piece of Brian Drayton's book in which he mentions that there is no mold for ministry (Chapter 12, pp. 80-86). In fact, much ministry happens just as you describe it: as a natural outgrowth of our day-to-day leadings and out of our natural inclinations. Sounds like you are well led to me, at least as I get to know you through cyberspace.
Blessings,
Liz, The Good Raised Up
Words fail me.
I should give everyone the update. I went back to midweek worship yesterday and it felt different. It started at the beginning when I found Kirk's outstretched hand as the greeter. The group was smaller--eight of us I think. There was no ministry but I felt the power at work.
When I saw Kirk at the door I thought "oh no, he's read the blog post!" I felt certain he had at the rise of the worship when he asked us for a go-round of names and sincerely tried to get a bit of interaction going. When he and I finally did get a moment to talk it came out he's been too busy to follow blogs for the last few weeks and hadn't read about his own Meeting A. He was doing all the right things because that's what he does. Yea Kirk!
Now, it was still only eight people on the edge of a busy youth-oriented neighborhood. I came in a stranger and left as a stranger. How do we find ways to engage with one another and build something worth coming to? I know Philly has more than enough young seekers to build vibrant alternative churches. Why not Quaker? Why not mid-week? Why not Meeting A?
Since the midweek meeting moved in 2000 from Thursday morning (which it was historically from the early days) to Wednesday evening, we've consistently drawn a fairly young set of people -- in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, mostly. Many of our more regular attenders have been in their 20s. [At my ripe age of nearly 50, "they all look young to me..." :) ] So we're younger than might be thought by outsiders.
But vibrant? That's an aesthetic question. In terms of numbers we've been floating at about 6-8 people on a given Wednesday night, and over the six years we've had pretty much a different set of people every two years or so. In terms of vocal ministry, we're quiet most of the time (as is our Sunday meeting). I think that's part of what people appreciate about it.
So conceptually, we could throw over what we've got and try for the model you're proposing, Martin, but I'm not sure it could be sustained. There's sort of an ebb and flow over time.
Martin,
I think my earlier comment was more of a comment on comments rather than on your post itself. I just took another look at your post, and it made me think of a working group I served on in a "Jubilation" workshop in our meeting. The struggles of getting people on committees was a big part of what motivated all of this. This is the essential part of our working group gave to the meeting:
Working Group on
Doing Less
Formal Work Becoming Informal
Key Issues Identified in the Discussion:
1) Doing less is ministry. Reducing obligations can open space for leadings of the spirit;
2) Faith / Trust – if there is not energy for a task, the world won’t end.
3) What are the essentials (infrastructure) versus what can be done out of shared leadings?
4) Very important work can and will be done outside of the formal structure of the Meeting.
It generated some exciting discussion but I don't think the meeting was in a place to embrace it. So, this is good stuff to be talking about, but if a meeting isn't receptive, maybe that's OK.
I guess the other thing that ought to be said is that committees are an important part of how meetings operate. It's a "we're all in this thing together" kind of feeling.
In my meeting, newcomers who have become regular attenders are often put on the outreach committee, even before they become members. On the one hand, it's a nice way of saying "Hey, we like you. We want more people like you, so why don't you see what you do about that." On the other hand, it can become a sort of ghetto, where people new to the meeting might be cut off from other important parts of the life of the meeting.
How can you do "outreach" (or "carry a concern for friendliness") if you can't talk from first-hand experience about how the meeting operates? Could a Friend "released" from other meeting responsibilities truly represent the meeting to outsiders?
In actual fact it happens like that sometimes, but I'm not sure it's the best way forward. Some say Quakerism is a "do-it-yourself" religion. But I think at its best, Quakerism is a "do-it-together" religion, and I'm not sure contracting out the job of being friendly is a very good move, generally speaking.
I think every church has this problem, Quaker or not. I'm a Baptist (but very curious about Quakers) and I've seen newcomers at my church left out to dry at times. I try to be friendly and greet them every Sunday, but sometimes it's just hard.
When I went through my questioning my faith phase, I visited a few churches and sometimes wasn't greeted. I guess it's just an unfortunate byproduct of everyone in a church or meeting or whatever who knows everyone else.
Are Quakers big on "committees?" In my exploration, I've found that I see a lot of "So-and-so Committee will be doing..." on blogs and, uh, "Church" (Is that what it's called? Meeting House?) websites.
In our church, if someone wants to do something, we go to the pastor for permission, get a few likeminded people together and do our thing. Hopefully it will grow into a full time ministry of the church but if it doesn't our church will at least lend a hand in giving its resources, like a room for weekday meetings or something. As long as you're doing something for the good of the church and community, it's really not a problem.
Anyway, I totally understand your position, even though I'm not a Friend. This was a very good article, and could even stand to be read by some Baptists I know. ;)