There were some funny stories at Quaker Studies this past weekend, about Quaker meetings for business in which one member simply refuses to stand down and accept that the meeting move forward with a certain action.
In one case, a meeting was discussing the meeting's investments in South African companies during Apartheid. One member felt extremely strongly about the issue and refused to join the rest of the meeting when all others had reached clarity. The business item remained open for 10 years, until the single member changed his mind and joined the rest of the meeting in unity. By then Apartheid had ended, so the issue was rather moot...
What to do in Quaker meeting for worship for business when dissent arises? Writing on Quaker business practices, Eden Grace writes,
individuals do not hold a power of veto, and should be ready to recognize the validity of corporate leadings and to submit to them if conscience allows, being recorded in the minutes as "standing aside".
When they are not willing to stand aside... what happens? Well, they can be overridden, or at least they have been at Durham in the past. That is huge, compared to a scenario where one voice can derail an otherwise united committee.
Consider the power of veto today. The president can veto any bill brought to his desk. Certain members of the UN Security Council can veto international military or aid campaigns. Last week Somini Sengupta wrote in the New York Times about why the U.N. can't solve the world's problems.
"The problem is not that the major powers don't care [about what's happening in Ukraine, Palestine, and Syria]. It is that they care too much. Russia and the United States have a great deal at stake in each conflict, and the rules of diplomacy enable them, as well as the other three permanent members - Britain, China and France - to veto any security Council action."
The article goes on to state that the U.S. has vetoed 14 draft resolutions, most regarding the Israeli Palestinian conflict; Russia has vetoed 11 concerning allied governments like Syria's.
A Quaker meeting for business might not be the only place one waits 10 years for a shift to occur-- a shift that comes too late to be of help.
Our Sunday School class discussed this week the difference between a normal meeting for business, in which our interests and opinions are the source of the opinions that form the discussion, and a Quaker meeting for business, in which the members listen to discern God's will for the corporate body, rather than trying to hash out a compromise between the human interests at the table.
We used a helpful handout written by Susan Smith, where she writes that for early Friends, "the basic assumption was that God would lead into unity those who truly submitted themselves to God's will... Friends believed that people who seek and follow God's will for a given situation are automatically brought into unity with each other, because God does not offer contradictory instructions for the same situation."
I was frustrated by the worshipful-verging-on-lethargic atmosphere at some of the NEYM business meetings, but hearing that even the high-stakes, official U.N. talks get stymied with their own tools reminded me that group decisions are never easy. If our first goal is to promote peace with the way we live, Quaker process is worth our attention and study because it focuses as much on listening as on speaking- on seeking to align with a larger will as with trying to align others with one's individual will.
Vastly better way to do business? Perhaps not.
Vastly less efficient? Perhaps not.
Worth a try? Yes.
In one case, a meeting was discussing the meeting's investments in South African companies during Apartheid. One member felt extremely strongly about the issue and refused to join the rest of the meeting when all others had reached clarity. The business item remained open for 10 years, until the single member changed his mind and joined the rest of the meeting in unity. By then Apartheid had ended, so the issue was rather moot...
What to do in Quaker meeting for worship for business when dissent arises? Writing on Quaker business practices, Eden Grace writes,
individuals do not hold a power of veto, and should be ready to recognize the validity of corporate leadings and to submit to them if conscience allows, being recorded in the minutes as "standing aside".
When they are not willing to stand aside... what happens? Well, they can be overridden, or at least they have been at Durham in the past. That is huge, compared to a scenario where one voice can derail an otherwise united committee.
Consider the power of veto today. The president can veto any bill brought to his desk. Certain members of the UN Security Council can veto international military or aid campaigns. Last week Somini Sengupta wrote in the New York Times about why the U.N. can't solve the world's problems.
"The problem is not that the major powers don't care [about what's happening in Ukraine, Palestine, and Syria]. It is that they care too much. Russia and the United States have a great deal at stake in each conflict, and the rules of diplomacy enable them, as well as the other three permanent members - Britain, China and France - to veto any security Council action."
 |
| This path behind Castelton State College where NEYM sessions were held provided much needed interludes between business sessions |
The article goes on to state that the U.S. has vetoed 14 draft resolutions, most regarding the Israeli Palestinian conflict; Russia has vetoed 11 concerning allied governments like Syria's.
A Quaker meeting for business might not be the only place one waits 10 years for a shift to occur-- a shift that comes too late to be of help.
Our Sunday School class discussed this week the difference between a normal meeting for business, in which our interests and opinions are the source of the opinions that form the discussion, and a Quaker meeting for business, in which the members listen to discern God's will for the corporate body, rather than trying to hash out a compromise between the human interests at the table.
We used a helpful handout written by Susan Smith, where she writes that for early Friends, "the basic assumption was that God would lead into unity those who truly submitted themselves to God's will... Friends believed that people who seek and follow God's will for a given situation are automatically brought into unity with each other, because God does not offer contradictory instructions for the same situation."
I was frustrated by the worshipful-verging-on-lethargic atmosphere at some of the NEYM business meetings, but hearing that even the high-stakes, official U.N. talks get stymied with their own tools reminded me that group decisions are never easy. If our first goal is to promote peace with the way we live, Quaker process is worth our attention and study because it focuses as much on listening as on speaking- on seeking to align with a larger will as with trying to align others with one's individual will.
Vastly better way to do business? Perhaps not.
Vastly less efficient? Perhaps not.
Worth a try? Yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment