Response
by Vi Kipling 8/12/02:
I have
been meaning to write to you for a long time in response to your article
on Spiritualism and now I have got round to it.
I have been reading
your views on Spiritualism and while I agree with a lot of what you say;
I consider you are wrong in one or two areas; in one area because you contradict
yourself and in another because you are not aware of the internal workings
of the Spiritualists National Union.
We do need to move
forward and the sooner the better; we need to take advantage of today's
technology and get true Spiritualism on the Internet in order that its effect
will contradict much of the nonsense that is there in the name of Spiritualism.
While I too deplore the hymn singing and psuedo sanctimonious attitudes
which are held in some Churches; we have always to bear in mind that for
Spiritualism to remain a religion it must conform with the Law Lords decision
in the case against Scientology when a Judgment outlining the legal definition
of religion was given by the Lord Justices, Denning and Buckley. They indicated
that for an organisation, or body of people, to be classified as a religion
it must show within its philosophy and/or teachings, a reverence to a God.
It did not have to be the God of the Christian Church but nevertheless,
it must be obvious within its meetings that a God was being acknowledged.
So it is a legal requirement that some form of reverence within a meeting
be shown. This reverence, however, need not take the form of hymn singing,
or even of prayers, a silence in which people are asked to go within themselves
and communicate with their God I am sure would equally suffice.
Your proposition
for an innovative President to be chosen and kept in office for 2 years
would not work; it would take Richard Branson some 5-10 years to turn some
of the Churches around and drag them from the stagnating pool in which they
are floundering. This proposition is then followed by suggesting that the
new President will select a Vice-President, Secretary etc. We are now back
to having a Committee so somewhere there is a contradiction. Perhaps the
difference is that we are now talking Selected Committees instead of Elected
Committees.
At National level
the President would also need longer than 3 years to put major and/or radical
changes into effect. It has to be remembered that everybody within Spiritualism,
with the exception of the office staff, are volunteers and some live exceedingly
busy lives and meetings cannot take place on a monthly basis. Decisions
discussed, amended, taken and then put into action, therefore, can be spread
out over several months. Unfortunately events cannot always move as fast
as everyone would wish.
At National level
the Officers of the Union are elected; all other members of the National
Executive Committee are selected by the Officers so they are able to bring
onto the Committee people whom they know to be well versed and expert in
the roles they are going to be given. These roles are usually Chairmen of
the Standing Committees and these Chairman form their own Committees from
their own choices so again, people who are interested and knowledgeable
in the work or area of each Committee is invited on to it, together of course,
with interested younger people in order that they can be given the opportunity
to 'learn the ropes' and become an integral part of the administrative side
of Spiritualism, if that is what they wish because Spiritualism must bring
forward and train the next generation.
It can be seen,
therefore, that while Church and District Councils do have elected Committees,
at National level practically every person is selected for their knowledge
and expertise which is what you are suggesting be done - it was done back
in the 1950s.
The duration of
tenure is also debatable. I cannot see any point in asking a vital, energetic,
enthusiastic person to stand down while s/he is still producing ideas which
is taking the Church and/or Spiritualism forward and perhaps replace them
with someone who is looking for new ideas after one year. Surely its a case
of 'if it works, don't knock it!'
While I do applaud
some of your sentiments and ideas regarding committees within Spiritualism,
many of them are already in place.
With regard to mediums
working in administration it is a sadness that this does take place. There
was a move made in the early days of Modern Spiritualism by the business
people within the movement to take over and run the Churches as business
ventures. Evidently there was an outcry because that would take away the
spontaneity of Spiritualism; unfortunately it has also taken away the efficiency
of many Spiritualist Churches.
Many mediums are
also administrators and business people and this is one of the reasons they
allow their names to go forward to be elected onto Committees as they know
they have the expertise to help in this direction. Mediums, however, should
be concentrating on being mediums; advancing their own mediumship, taking
services, helping people privately and teaching. There is such a great need
for more good mediums within Spiritualism and it is sad when so many are
working within administration instead of working on, and with, their mediumship.
One point we have to consider, however, when discussing the work of mediums
and making decisions on their behalf, is the fact that mediums are very
open to spirit inspiration and an inspired medium
sat on a Committee would be very beneficial to that Committee.
Luv
Vi Kipling
