Part of my role as Ministerial Advocate for Indiana Yearly Meeting is to put thought into how to foster renewal within our monthly meetings and the yearly meeting as a whole. I think authority plays at least a part in this discussion, and I wrote a piece touching on this for Quaker Life a few months ago.
It’s no surprise then that I was pleased to see Quaker Life addressing this topic head on in the first issue of 2011. Is a lack of sufficient authority at the yearly meeting level the main obstacle – or even a significant impediment – to meeting health and vitality? That’s certainly the position Iowa Yearly Meeting superintendent Ron Bryan takes in his contribution, “The Need for a Clearly Defined Authority of the Yearly Meeting.” Bryan even goes so far as to say that yearly meetings need hiring and firing authority at the monthly meeting level.
As I reflect on the question of authority within yearly meetings, I am reminded of a recent book I came across called Hamilton’s Curse. The basic premise of author Thomas J. DiLorenzo is that Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had diametrically opposed ideas regarding the structure of American government – Hamilton favoring a strong, centralized version and Jefferson preferring a decentralized model that emphasized states’ rights. As something of a political junkie, I certainly find this interesting from an American history/political science perspective, but also potentially instructive in terms of yearly meetings.
In one section where the author discusses how different sections of the U.S. had different characters and economic interests, and I found the following quote particularly relevant: “With a truly consolidated or monopoly government, only one of those interests could prevail at any one time….This is precisely why the founders created a system of federalism, or decentralized government.” The author concludes that the move to a more centralized government sowed the seeds of the civil war - a sobering thought for any yearly meeting faced with current or potential conflict.
Do different yearly meetings lean in different directions when it comes to centralized or decentralized authority, and is there a connection between the structure of authority and yearly and monthly meeting health?
It’s no surprise then that I was pleased to see Quaker Life addressing this topic head on in the first issue of 2011. Is a lack of sufficient authority at the yearly meeting level the main obstacle – or even a significant impediment – to meeting health and vitality? That’s certainly the position Iowa Yearly Meeting superintendent Ron Bryan takes in his contribution, “The Need for a Clearly Defined Authority of the Yearly Meeting.” Bryan even goes so far as to say that yearly meetings need hiring and firing authority at the monthly meeting level.
As I reflect on the question of authority within yearly meetings, I am reminded of a recent book I came across called Hamilton’s Curse. The basic premise of author Thomas J. DiLorenzo is that Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had diametrically opposed ideas regarding the structure of American government – Hamilton favoring a strong, centralized version and Jefferson preferring a decentralized model that emphasized states’ rights. As something of a political junkie, I certainly find this interesting from an American history/political science perspective, but also potentially instructive in terms of yearly meetings.
In one section where the author discusses how different sections of the U.S. had different characters and economic interests, and I found the following quote particularly relevant: “With a truly consolidated or monopoly government, only one of those interests could prevail at any one time….This is precisely why the founders created a system of federalism, or decentralized government.” The author concludes that the move to a more centralized government sowed the seeds of the civil war - a sobering thought for any yearly meeting faced with current or potential conflict.
Do different yearly meetings lean in different directions when it comes to centralized or decentralized authority, and is there a connection between the structure of authority and yearly and monthly meeting health?
Matt Hisrich is the Ministerial Advocate for Indiana Yearly Meeting. He lives in Richmond, Indiana, with his wife and two daughters, and is a member of First Friends Meeting there. Matt is a graduate of Hillsdale College in Michigan and ESR, where he received his MDiv in teaching and theology. Prior to enrolling in seminary, he worked with non-profit public policy organizations in Indiana, Kansas, and Ohio.