I am grateful that Sue Tannehill encouraged me to attend the Powell House training workshop on Friends’ Decision-Making and Clerking at the end of January 2020 led by the illustrious Arthur Larrabee, life-long trainer on Clerking and Quaker Process, and Steve Mohlke, the General Secretary of New York Yearly Meeting. It opened my eyes to the real basis of Quaker decision-making, which is the seeking individually and collectively of the Spirit.
Unlike other religious and secular organizations, Quakers have placed the final authority on decision making not with a single person, like an elite cleric, a trustee, or a clerk. They placed the final authority with Spirit as discerned by the Group. This makes decision-making full of listening to each other, trusting that the way forward may come through any voice in the room. Because we are all human with all the distractions, and human frailties, we enter silence, in waiting worship, asking all present to think of something larger than themselves. That something we call “the Sense of the Meeting.”
I’ve heard this unique idea many times referred to by our seasoned Quaker Members. It was explored in great detail in the workshop. A Sense of the Meeting is not the same as consensus in the rest of the world, which is usually in secular process a seeking of an agreement all can live with. A Sense of the Meeting is like consensus with Spirit. It involves seeking love, inviting God into the process, for what is best for the Meeting, in a resolution that everyone is invested in.
A “Sense of the Meeting” was illustrated in several scenarios. And it was clear that a Sense of the Meeting decision often acknowledges the reservations some present have with the resolution, but that all can allow it to be the way forward. A person in a Meeting may not personally agree with a proposed decision but can “Stand Aside,” allowing the decision to be resolved, if that person can see the decision can really work for the rest of the Meeting, or as not deeply important enough to him or her to prevent the resolution.
Friends’ decision-making process has advantages over the democratic system of voting, which often produces winners and losers. For all its virtues, the democratic process can leave a group feeling divided after a resolution. Look at the partisan culture of our political world.
In Friends’ Decision-Making, community building happens before the major decision-making. All are included. We encourage equality of voice in the discussions, eliminating the need for a hierarchy to decide. Our process is meant to be orderly, and to foster trust within the Group. Our underlying belief is that group wisdom is greater than individual wisdom. This doesn’t necessarily mean we decide things easily, or quickly. I remember Rodney telling a story of how major Quaker decisions can take months and occasionally years. And if slowness is needed for a Meeting is be united, then it is accepted with a faith in how Spirit leads that Meeting.
It was fascinating to also explore what happens when a Meeting cannot reach a Sense of the Meeting. This is called an impasse. It occurs when someone or group feel a proposal is against their internal sense of what is best for the Meeting. A person would say, “I am not in unity” on this decision. We learned that you don’t know as a Meeting that you are at an impasse until after you have tried discernment several times to find a way through the disunity. At such relatively rare times, Meetings are encouraged to view the concern that is preventing a Sense of the Meeting, not as belonging to the individual(s) that brought it forward, but rather as a concern that belongs to the whole Meeting. What an inclusive way of viewing conflict, which is about the values and ideas embedded in a decision, not the personalities. I imagine it takes a lot of humility, patience, and love to avoid getting caught up in personality conflicts in major decisions. But Quakers are a radical faith, leading us to a radical practice: one that provides us with frequent opportunities to go deeper, to listen inside and to each other, for the loving voices of divinity.
My favorite idea from the training was that responsibility for the well-being and direction of the Meeting rests with everyone. This idea seemed to me to bring together the testimonies of equality, community, and integrity.
I highly recommend this workshop at Powell House to anyone who wants to grow in their Quaker practice. Sadly, Arthur Larrabee announced he was retiring from teaching after this workshop. He has been teaching Clerking and Quaker Decision Making for over 25 years, and I was very impressed at his discernment abilities, his depth of experience, his expressiveness, and transparency. However, Steve Mohlke, who has worked with Arthur for many years, has agreed to continue teaching this subject. Steve brings a lot of wisdom, sensitivity, and humility to his teaching. This workshop is in capable hands going forward.