Having worked for many years among Quaker organizations, I have long developed strong impressions about the system Friends have created, the system Friends think they have created, and the system that they say the wish to be.  When I began, as a 30something to work in an office of Friends in a Yearly Meeting among my cohort (some younger, some older) I was inspired by a sense of shared commitment to income equality.  But that did not last too long.

Soon 'income equality' gave way to being 'professional'  That turned into 'income equality' - to a place in the world where similar work was happening.

All this made sense at the time.  

Then I watched as Friends' schools were increasingly needing the income and consistency that a wealthy clientele wanted.  No industrial focus is given in the upper schools, little attention paid to Friends with concerns of those who are not academically successful from the beginning.

I watched as the organization I worked for put more distance between the highest and lowest paid, in the name of 'recruitment' - not commitment to strengthening the community of Friends and its organization.  Organizations became more businesslike: that is, they used increasingly the business world's model.

The odd thing was that the business world was increasingly interested in the ways Friends had worked for years: collaborative teamwork of committees; full staff meetings regularly held and decisions and recommendations that came from the 'grass roots'; shared responsibility- not blaming the upper level or responsibility or the lower level for action, but allowing for all to learn and grow.  

Of course, Friends do not always 'do' their process well either. This was driving us to make quick anaylsis based on educated advice, rather than searching inward for some direction.   

I am concerned that the directions organizations  have taken for 20 plus years has been increasingly in the direction of what success looks like for the world rather than how we successfully serve and allow our Quaker communities  to flourish.  How many of our organizations think FIRST about how the work fits into the lives of Friends? Do we see our committee structure and traditional way of working as something to overcome? or something to reshape to continue to include the community? Do we understand how our focus on community can shape a different entity than focusing as a business? When our focus changes to address more the world needs, can we be brave enough to be truthful, then, of who we are and be public - come clean - ab out it?

We build community by paying attention and being engaged - not with the cohort around the organization alone, but with the broader institution of Friends.  That requires permeability as well as form - interest as well as clarity of purpose. And language: it must be clear.  Inside Language may seem like a fine way to hold our community.  But if our purpose is to BUILD community, we like early Friends will pay attention to language.   When we use words like 'overseer', 'elder', 'accountability' - even 'meeting' - do we remember that those words all carry mental models that can be blocks to others to understand what we mean?  When our 'yea' is 'yea' and our 'nay' is 'nay', we may need to use more words, or change our use of those words.  It does not help our community to dig in our heels and block engagement on any level.

I suspect that more will come, but for now, that is where my thoughts have been.