Striving toward Yes

Most church and conference meetings where questions of great import are to be decided seem to have a worrisome aspect in common: nobody comes away satisfied. Perhaps some manner of making decisions that leaves everyone contented—if not elated—will someday be found, but we are not there at present, obviously.

An article in the US The Mennonite periodical (July 13, 2017) addresses the issue of sound decision making while reflecting on the experience of the Orlando National Assembly in 2017. The writer (Gerald Mast, author of Go to Church-Change the World) asserts that we conflate consensus decision making and the parliamentary procedures outlined in Robert’s Rules of Order, the result being a feeling for many that what was decided didn’t necessarily reflect best—or even good—practice.

“When we approach the application of either a consensus or parliamentary procedure as a matter for Christian ethics, we will highlight what both methods share in common: seeking a collective decision that reflects the wisdom of a majority of the gathered body while acknowledging the perspectives of those who disagree, either by giving dissenters an opportunity to yield to the majority (consensus) or by accepting a vote of the majority while recording the number and opinions of those opposed (parliamentary procedure).”

In my experience, the process of motions, amendments, votes on amendments, votes on the main question has strength: it results in a conclusion, a decision. It also exhibits a weakness: if amendments are proposed in order to reflect better the opinions of a minority, and if they’re defeated—or accepted—the process frequently degrades to confusion, the “what exactly are we debating at this point?” phenomenon. The process frequently complicates to the point where the gist of the question is overwhelmed and the subsequent puzzlement over “what exactly did we decide?” alerts us to the possibility that we may have dropped the ball . . . again.

The dream, of course, is that we come away from our decision-making gatherings contented, even when not happy and that we are satisfied that all existing viewpoints have been given appropriate attention and that the final decision was reached fairly. Failing to achieve such consensus always results in a blow to unity, both practical and psychological.

Participants in decision-making, conference gatherings often feel blind-sided by being asked to approve long, wordy resolutions presented by leadership. One can assume that the resolutions are the result of intensive, laborious work by well-meaning, informed colleagues and still have doubts about details in it that might or might not need careful and strenuous consideration. But the picking-apart of the details is time consuming and treacherous, and conventions and annual meetings are virtually always bound by time restrictions. Proposed amendments are tantamount to “opening another can of worms,” and, furthermore, may make us all late for our flights home . . . or for dinner.

We have come to see a combination of plenary (whole group) debate and round tables as a combination that should encourage consensus building in the decision-making process. There is merit in small group discussion: it reduces the threat level for persons petrified of expressing themselves to a plenary, questions can be asked there that wouldn’t be asked in the large group, and being more personal and face-to-face, the gaining of an appreciation for dissenting viewpoints is given a chance. However, the fact that we generally end up squeezing them in—time wise—and feel it necessary to “report to the whole group at length” sometimes acts against the efficacy of the small group opportunity.

There comes a time—sooner or later—when we must declare ourselves “ready for the question.” To determine when that time has arrived is critical to the moderator’s task; it’s one thing to ask the question of the delegate body but technically, the answer, “Yes, we’re ready for the question,” ought to be unanimous . . . or nearly so. If the steps to consensus have been well attended to (pre-session publication of critical questions, round table discussion, question and answer opportunities, exhaustive debate if necessary) it ought to be clear to supporters and dissenters that the preliminaries to voting have all been exhausted. Given that the delegate body is truly “ready for the question,” Robert’s Rules of Order followed meticulously should ensure that fairness has prevailed.

There are cases where a body of dissent hardens, however, to the point where the collective wisdom determined through prayer, consensus building and orderly debate and decision making is not sufficient to generate contentment, acquiescence. Unfortunately, the only real defense for persisting in dissent is to declare the majority to be in a state of apostasy, thus justifying the breaking of the bonds of Christian community. The tendency toward permanent division, permanent dissent has become a stark and unfortunate legacy of Protestant Christianity.

We don’t fully grasp the importance to the Kingdom of sound consensus building and decision making. To quote Barack Obama, “ . . . what’s troubling is the gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics—the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our seeming inability to build a working consensus to tackle any big problem.” (Obama, Barack. The Audacity of Hope. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2006. p. 22) And because we neither understand how to do it, and because we don’t give it the time and energy that could make our consensus building a reality, we present ourselves to the world around us as people who talk a good talk but walk around with mud all over our faces.

There’s no standard by which this can be justified. Members of emerging majorities and minorities in our current environment, it’s always time to get off our high horses and walk on the ground again.