“The Atheist’s Guide to Quaker Process” - summary with excerpts

“The Atheist’s Guide to Quaker Process : spirit-led decisions for the secular” by Selden W. Smith, Pendle Hill Pamphlet 472.  32 pages.  $7.50 + postage from Pendle Hill Publications.

What a surprising title for a Pendle Hill Pamphlet!  It may seem oxymoronic for ‘atheist’ and ‘Quaker’ to occur together.  Nonetheless, some thirty years ago I did hear a caller on WHYY-FM in Philadelphia refer to herself as a ‘Quaker atheist’, so such Friends do exist.  Selden Smith, a long-time nontheist Friend, was inspired to write this pamphlet especially for non-Quaker atheists, agnostics, humanists, nonbelievers, nontheists who serve in Quaker organizations, such as the American Friends Service Committee, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Quaker schools, or hospitals where Quaker process is used for taking decisions.

“Part 1: How the Quakers Do It”

Smith believes that Quaker process, “seeking the sense of the meeting”, is open to a community much larger than only ‘spirit-led’ Friends.  After explaining traditional faith-led decision-making by Friends for the past three-and-a-half plus centuries, Smith moves into explaining how nontheists can participate in Quaker process without hypocrisy or pretense.

First, there are some things Quaker process is not.

• It is not majority rule; “… there is no outvoted, disaffected minority to weigh down the community after the decision is made.”
• It is not consensus, which is a secular process that “generally relies on bargaining and compromises,” which may favor a ‘middle course’.
• It is not conflict-free.  “The goal of the meeting is not to avoid [conflict] but to approach it forthrightly, filled with love, and committed to unity.”
• It may not be unanimous.  The meeting is obligated to hear objections, or even help to articulate them, which will help everyone to understand the concern.  At best, it will reveal a third, fourth, or -nth path forward.  The objector may ‘stand aside’ or even block action, but if absolutely necessary, “the meeting may override the dissenter standing in the way.”  In that case, acting without unity, the community is damaged, and will need to repair itself.

Minutes record the decisions of the meeting and are written in ‘real time’ as the meeting is seeking to discern what action to take.  If it’s hard to come to the wording of the minute, it may indicate that the group is not close to unity.  Often, complex discussion can be summarised by recording the questions that participants ask.  However, “individuals’ names are not generally recorded in connection with the points raised or the views expressed … [in accordance with] the principle of non-ownership of ideas.”

The clerk, who sits at the head of the table or the front of the room, is not the ‘chair’, but rather the ‘facilitator’ of the discussion.  “But nobody’s perfect.  Clerks don’t always recognise their own biases, participants can’t always set aside their personal agendas, and the loudest do sometimes drown out the wisest.”

Tips:

• “Always face the clerk when speaking. … [if responding to another’s point], don’t look at them.  This is not a debate.”
• If, as clerk, you wish to speak, but not as clerk, “call on yourself first, to make this clear.”
• “No parking lot huddles.”
• “Not everything deserves the whole group’s time.”
• “Don’t show up at the last minute and derail the process.”
• “Conversely, don’t make yourself absent just to avoid trouble.”

“Part 2: How You Can Do It Too”

“So how can those without faith enjoy the advantages that faith brings?”

“Seek common ground” – For Smith, “the unifying principle is not actually believing in the same thing (we don’t), but all of us attempting to reach beyond ourselves, our egos, our personal goals, and our pride. … [T]he result is a kind of secular communion, with its basis … in care for the unity of the organization.”

“Start by giving up” – “Society teaches us to approach every group decision as a contest, even a battlefield … But Quakers have not forsworn physical weapons only to replace them with verbal surrogates.  Instead, they enter the discussion with the intent to submit.  … There are just members of a single body, facing a problem to be solved, intent only on helping one another.  … [F]lipping the battlefield metaphor on its head opens up a wide range of creative possibilities that may not have been apparent before.  … There is no vote, and you have no opponents.  … Gone is the stress of having to prove a point or be recognized as brilliant.  … Quaker decision-making [is not necessarily] … free of tension.  … But that tension comes from the subject under discussion, not–as with the debate-and-vote model–from the process itself.”

“Bring your best self, not your best game” – “The combat metaphor asks us to be realists, but in becoming so, we close off options that might have enabled us to solve a hard problem without doing something we’re ashamed of.  By contrast, nobody exits a well-run sense-of-the-meeting gathering with any regrets.”

“Respect” – “Today we claim to give equal respect to everyone, but it is still all too easy to prejudge others based on appearance, accent, evidence of education, and a host of other factors.  … [Getting] to know one’s fellow participants in settings outside the group meetings–in one-on-one conversations, meeting their families, talking about hobbies or sports or current events–can go a long way toward seeing through such superficialities.”

“Integrity” – “In a debate, I would make no sense to disclose anything that might weaken your case; you would only share the fraction of the truth that helps you.  But integrity permits no fractions.  You share all that you know and admit what you don’t.  … Integrity also includes speaking plainly.  … Plain talk means not sugar-coating it, not talking around it, just saying it.  The result is clarity, but at the risk of bluntness.  Quakers mitigate that risk by explicitly reaffirming their love for the person who may be hurt by such directness.”

“Courage and Compassion” – “Courage means a strong heart; compassion means a big one.  Participants must have the courage to take the discussion to places that are difficult for them and the compassion to see when those places are difficult for others.”

“Patience” – “In business meeting, progress seems glacial at times.  The clerk asks for a moment of silence and it stretches into several.  Speakers struggle interminably to find their points.  … Friends rarely take up an issue and resolve it at the same meeting for business.  Quakers use the term ‘proceed as way opens’ to acknowledge that the right course may take time to emerge.  As frustrating as this slowness can be for someone who is used to voting and moving on, it is essential for the long-term goal of unity.  Care for the process, however long it takes, ensures that when the decision is finally made, there is no lingering bitterness to poison its implementation.”

“Trust” – “Trust in each other is essential to the free flow of knowledge and ideas within the group, as well as the exploration of unknown places and radical concepts.  All participants have left their armor and weapons at the door; all have let their guard down.  It is a safe place to be vulnerable, to speak our truth without fear that it will someday be used against us or that it will, inadvertently, harm another.  … [It] becomes possible because of a very human quality: love.”

“Mindfulness” – “We need to be entirely present for the business meeting.  … Full attention from start to finish–alertness to one’s own state of mind, awareness of the expressions and body language of others, as well as their words–builds cohesion and community.”

“Humor” – “We find a good joke amusing because the setup launches us in one direction, and the punchline twists us around to land someplace else that is totally unexpected, yet exactly right.  This twist changes the brain–not just metaphorically, but literally and physically.  Your synapses are different.”

“Conclusion: Lighting the Journey”

“[When] pressed, nearly all [Quakers] reach for the concept that there is ‘that of God in everyone.’  … But perhaps even more important that this core principle … is its corollary, the near-commandment to look for that of God in everyone.  … The act of looking, the effort of looking, fosters a connection that, however briefly, transcends our isolation as individuals and nourishes our human spirits.  That nourishment fueled centuries of Quaker activism that has made the world a better place for believers and nonbelievers alike.  Is that human spirit any less nourished, is that connection any less real, because the effort leading to that nourishment and connection springs from a secular source?”