QuakerInfo.com Forum

[Fiona Sinclair]

My PM has recently decided to lock the door of the Meeting House 10 minutes after the start of Meeting for Worship.
I found this out the hard way 2 weeks ago, when I turned up 15 minutes late and I could not get in. I thought that the door had slammed shut in the wind, or that the clocks had gone back without me noticing, but this turned out not to be the case. I was told the next week that this was now the official policy of the Meeting, as of the previous week. No announcement to that effect had been made the week before. I was also told that no discussion would be entered into on the matter, unless it was placed on the agenda of the next PM nearly a month later, and that the door would remain locked meanwhile. The decision to lock the door was not made by PM, because the door had been locked earlier in the day on which PM was to take place. I have since discovered that most of the people who attended PM that day had not even been aware that the door was locked.
After complaints, it was grudgingly accepted that regular attenders of the Meeting would tell each other the keycode of the lock, and this was supposed to make it "all right".
But what about visitors, (particularly first-timers), irregular attenders, etc ? The attitude was "Tough". They can either disturb the meeting by making a noise to attract attention to themselves or (if they are too Quakerly to interupt a Meeting) then they can go away. I don't know why my PM has suddenly become so unwelcoming to all but its inner clique. It was not like that until about 2 weeks ago.
I know that there was, at one time, a law requiring that all churches of any denomination had to hold their regular services openly in public and not in secrecy behind closed doors. I think that this law was passed around the time when religious toleration came in, and was one of the conditions which a religion had to fulfil in order to be tolerated.
I know that the law (whose name I can't remember) was still in operation a long time later than that, and caused some concern for reasons such as weddings being unable to prevent gatecrashers. What I would like to know is whether it is still in force, and what its name was.
Also, is there any specifically Quaker rule requiring Meeting for Worship to be held openly, or any dispensation permitting a Meeting for Worship to lock out those who wish to attend it ?

[Cel]

That just sounds wrong to me. So very wrong. I would fight it as much as I could if I was you.
_________________
Formerly Known As Carl

[wsamuel]

[I moved this thread from Q&A to Discussion because that seemed a more appropriate place for it.]

There is a traditional conviction that meetings for worship should be open and public. Friends are not rule oriented, so you're not likely to find something as clear as what you appear to be seem.

The Britain YM F&P is mostly a compilation of quotations, rather than being prescriptive. And I couldn't find mention of the importance of worship being public and open in the section on worship. But there may well be minutes about it, perhaps centuries old.

There is also a concern about respecting the worship atmosphere, including by being prompt in attendance. That's probably the reason for this door locking, although I've never heard of this being used at a meeting before. I've heard of all entrances but one to the meeting room being blocked after worship begins, but the general practice is to leave one entrance available. In the USA, I think your PM's practice might violate fire codes as it would make quick exit in event of emergency difficult.

There are various ways used to minimize worship disruption by a steady stream of people coming in. Where I used to be a member, the practice was to close the doors to the meeting room (which are not lockable) at 5 after. A greeter remained outside the doors at this time to explain to any who came that to minimize disruption people would wait in the foyer until the children left before entering. When the children left for their classes, the doors were opened and people were free to enter from that time forward. This is late enough so that not many would come in later than that. This seems a much gentler and less draconian approach than the one used in your PM.

The practice of providing a way for regulars to get in after locking but not visitors seems to clearly violate the principle of worship being public.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to raise a question and concern to the Britain YM Quaker Life Committee, whose responsibilities include "support for the right holding of meetings for worship . . .", for guidance on this matter to constituent meetings.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Webservant, QuakerInfo.com

[Little Nell]

I am amazed by this. At our meeting people sometimes arrive late and just come and sit down as unobtrusively as possible.

I am also concerned about safety - surely if there was a fire you would want people to be able to get out quickly.

Regarding open doors in worship - in England it has always been the case that a wedding, whether in any church or register office, must be conducted with the doors open because it is a public ceremony and to give the opportunity for people to raise any legal objections to it. I don't think this extends to other services or meetings, but I can't think of any church nowadays that would shut their doors - most of them are trying hard to encourage attendance.

nell

[seagrape]

i'm sorry to hear that... As Nell said, in a public house of worship, is that against health and safety? I mean, I know people can get out, but could it be an issue, in an emergency, if emergency personnel couldn't get in, with all those people inside?


peace...

[CelticNorth]

It seems sad that a religious community cannot communicate within itself one of the most basic understandings.

[Anthony]

One is left with the assumption that there has been a long term problem with worshipers arriving late at this meeting; it seems unlikely that the doors would have been locked against visitors. Should one expect that such lateness be dealt with by eldering rather than by locking people out of the building?

If I may pose a question: is there a reluctance by elders to elder? I have twice attended a meeting where a worshiper has ministered for a period covering a third of the meeting time; I am only an occasional visitor, so I wonder how often it happens? I hesitate to say that on both occasions the ministry was mainly a monologue because I know that it is considered ungraceful to criticise ministry, but this may be part of the problem: should one expect disruptive issues to be dealt with by elders?

[BillSamuel]

It seems to me that elders or their contemporary equivalents, and sometimes other parts of the meeting, should be dealing with issues like vocal ministry and later arrival at worship. Part of this is guidance and education so that those coming with any regularity gain an understanding of the underlying principles, and are helped to learn how to discern about ministry. Those who don't learn and act persistently well outside those principles need to be eldered individually.

Much of the Society of Friends has become very uncomfortable with the role of elders. In part, this is historically due to a reaction against elders not acting in the spirit but rather in a very narrow and rule-based manner. But there is a need for elders, and such failures should be dealt with by other means than not having elders or having such a restricted view of them that they can't serve their purpose effectively.

Eldering has come to be viewed in a somewhat negative light. Elders ideally are the spiritual nurturers. Most of what they do should be encouraging Friends to spiritually grow. A relatively small proportion of their work should be chastizing offenders. If they do the spiritual nurture well, there will be less whose behavior becomes offensive.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ

[Fiona Sinclair]

Thank you all for your replies.

Surely it would disrupt a meeting more, not less, if a latecoming friend had to ring a doorbell or otherwise draw attention to themselves rather than just slipping in quietly ?

The door can be opened from the inside, though locks have been known to stick and there isn't another exit.

The excuse given was not friends coming in late, but because (at a function open to the general public held on a Saturday several months ago), a friend left her handbag lying around and was surprised to find that her purse had been removed from it.
I do not see how locking people out of Meeting for Worship on a Sunday could have prevented that.

from Fiona

[Fiona Sinclair]

Maybe this ought to be a new topic, but it does follow from what some people have been saying on this one. I will try it both ways and leave it up to the administrator.
A number of people mentioned unpunctuality. I wish that they would send their concerns on that subject to our local bus company.
Many of our members come by public transport, and many have to come a long way. Buses are few and far between on Sundays. Some areas do not even have a Sunday service, and others are lucky to get one an hour - which may not run to time.
Are people seriously suggesting that a family who may have had an hour's journey to get to meeting should be excluded from it because their bus arrived 10 minutes late ?
That strikes me as equally unQuakerly to locking the door.
If anyone is to be punished for the unpunctuality of the bus service, it should not be those who travelled on it. That might have been the only bus that ran from their village to the city on Sunday morning.

[Little Nell]

I hope that it is unlikely that anyone would steal anything in a meeting for worship. However, at functions when any member of the public can be present, it is wise not to leave possessions lying around to tempt the more light-fingered amongst them.

I think it is very sad that the response to this appears to be to have a closed meeting. At the least it is unwelcoming.

nell

[Pulpculture]

I can't imagine Jesus turning someone away for being late
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!

[Fiona Sinclair]

Preparative Meeting has decided that the door will not be locked during Meeting for Worship.
I would say - if any of you are passing through Aberdeen, come and visit us.
However, I have discovered that there was a similar incident 3 years ago when attempts were made by the elders to impose a locked door, and complaints resulted in a PM decision not to do so. The present occasion probably won't be the last.
So much for Elders ruling on how a Meeting is to be run.
The main factor in the decision was that we would have lost our charitable status if the door had been locked.

[Taogypsy]

I have read through this discussion and found it very interesting, also a little disturbing.

Disclaimer,

I have never attended a meeting of Quakers. So I do not understand all the nuances that exist, and of course have not been to this particular meeting.

End Disclaimer,

Just from life, I find there is nothing as unwelcoming as a closed door, and a locked door is like someone turning their back, when help is sought.

I would imagine that in any location of worship the very first rule is of God and that is the rule of hospitality, refuge and sanctuary. None of these can be offered through a locked door.

So run my thoughts.
Be well,
Charlie
_________________
If you think you understand a thing,
Your mind has ceased to function,
To make it work again, try to see it from the side of misunderstanding.
-- anon

[wsamuel]

Charlie,

You should understand that this is a unique situation. I have never heard of any other Friends meeting or church anywhere in the world that has locked the door during meeting for worship. Friends have a historic testimony that worship is open to all, and while there are many differences among the several branches of Friends, this is something still generally agreed upon by Friends everywhere.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Webservant, QuakerInfo.com