Author: Terence

I am a Minister of the Uniting Church in Australia. My current ministries focus on consultancy and teaching about consensus based decision-making, mediation, governance training and professional supervision for Ministers. I am co-author of the book "The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together". I live on the beautiful Far South Coast of NSW from where I undertake ministry across the globe. Contact me at terence@makingchurchdecisions.com

UMC Needs a New Way

What next for the UMC?

The UMC (United Methodist Church) is clearly at a crossroad. The decision by the General Conference in February to maintain the rejection of LGBTIQ+ people from Ministry in the Church, strengthen penalties for clergy that do same gender weddings and other decisions has ignited a firestorm in the denomination. 69% of the US delegates favoured allowing local churches to decide their own position (“The One Church Model”) but the overseas delegates strongly supported the “Traditional Plan”.

That the UMC cannot continue as it is should be clear to everyone. I am not arrogant enough to tell members of another church which turn they should take at a time like this. Nevertheless, there is one very strong piece of advice that I am prepared to offer.

Even as a long distance observer of the UMC, it is clear that there is a lot of anger and aggression being expressed towards people who hold different views on the future for the church. This combative, disrespectful and self-absorbed way of interacting must come to an end! There are lessons here for all churches!!

What does a new way look like?

There is much discussion across the church about whether there will be two, three or more fragments left from the UMC as it stands today. Some still hope for one church but this seems less and less likely. I have no comment to offer on the structural arrangements that should come to pass for the UMC. However, I am very clear that what needs to change is the way that people relate to each other.

The new way for the UMC has to be one where people genuinely listen to each other. A way where they seek to work together in discerning the will of Christ for his church. The new way must include respect and appreciation for people who hold different positions to us.

Rev Adam Hamilton is offering great leadership as he and others try to foster healthy and constructive conversations about what to do in response to the decision of General Conference in February. He is encouraging Methodists who understand that it is possible to live together with major differences and to work together on finding a solution. Of particular interest to me is that he is speaking about building a consensus across the church. There will be a major meeting in May. People who can envisage living in the same church as people who have different opinions will come together. In all their diversity they will seek to discern what the future may look like for the UMC.

I would love to be an observer at that meeting in May! I’d like to see how they engage in a consensus building approach. This may be the first time in the history of the UMC that a serious consensus-building approach has been attempted. This has to be the new way for the UMC.

2016 General Conference – a lost opportunity

When the General Conference met in Portland in 2016 it had available to it a consensus-building approach to discernment. I was contracted to develop the alternative Rule, prepare meeting resources and provide training and resources for using the process. Along with my colleague, Julia Kuhn Wallace I hoped that the delegates would experience another way of exploring difficult issues. For reasons that I will not go into here, the Rule was not adopted. As a result, the legalistic, argumentative, power-driven approach of the Parliamentary process continued in use. The outcome was the Bishop’s Special Commission and the 2019 Called General Conference.

How is it a surprise that the UMC found itself in the same belligerent and hurtful situation again in 2019 as it did in 2016? Why should people expect that having engaged in this process using aggressive parliamentary rules that now it is possible for people to turn off the aggression? The UMC is reaping what it has sown because in its meeting procedures it has encouraged disrespect, power plays and a winner take all mentality.

The alternative Rule in 2016 would have provided delegates, and other members of the UMC, a chance to experience another way of being in community around difficult issues. Not taking that direction was a lost opportunity.

Lessons for the new UMC / churches

I know that there will be many people who think that “if we can only get rid of all those people who think differently to us then it will be fine.” There are Conferences and Jurisdictions that are ready to reject the 2019 decisions and be affirming of LGBTQI+ people in the church. But do not think that this alone will get you where you need to go. The new “gatherings” of UMC people need a new way of making decisions.

There is no doubt that using Robert’s Rules of Order has been a major driver for why the UMC finds itself where it is today. If new groupings that want to be inclusive and respectful of each other continue to use parliamentary styles of decision-making then they will end up with broken relationships, alienated members and intractable conflict.

If new groups form around principles of respect and inclusion then they need to develop decision-making processes that are consistent with these values. Consensus-based discernment processes will be critical in the next phase for the successor groups to the UMC. The churches and Jurisdictions that are opposed to the Traditional Plan will need to invest in developing alternative business procedures. These resources are available and can be implemented when there is a will and a deliberate approach to doing so. Please do not think that you can change the culture of any new church(es) without making major changes to the way in which you engage in discernment!

Conclusion

If we are going to have healthy relationships we need to build capacity in the people and establish healthy ways of interacting. Churches need to establish a culture that gives the best chance of expressing Christian values. Robert’s Rules of Order are the opposite of what churches should be doing! Consensus processes better reflect and support Christian values.

The UMC is experiencing a huge crisis and we should all be praying for them. My encouragement is that any new way for the United Methodist Church does not just deal with the symptoms but also the causes. The causes include the way in which Christian relationships have been defined and structured – parliamentary business procedures included. Dealing with the causes by changing the way people meet and decide issues will lay the foundation for healthy and effective churches into the future.

Politics and Consensus

politicsPolitics and Consensus

Politics is full of conflict. Observers call out for greater collaboration rather than political point scoring. People understand that as a society we have too many shared problems to enjoy the luxury of opposing the ideas of others for no good reason. Most people long for our leaders to constructively engage together in a search for shared solutions.

I am often asked if consensus decision-making processes can work in a political environment. Well, it depends!! The first observation that I make is that consensus can only be built if there are shared values. That usually get a knowing laugh and the assumption that consensus processes cannot work in politics.

In Australia, it is very difficult to see shared values between our political parties. Maybe it is because we are in a national election campaign that makes the aggressive rejection of each other’s ideas more strident. The “necessity” to create a product differentiation between the policies of the different parties in order to attract votes at elections brings out the worst in our politicians.

If we understand the political process as the pursuit of power then clearly there can be no shared values. In that context, there has to be a winner and a loser. So is consensus building doomed to be relegated to the fringes of society? Or is there a chance that it could take over the central power centres of our society?

Options for Politicians and Consensus

In the United States until the last 15 to 20 years there was often the capacity for bipartisan solutions to issues. The phrase ‘working across the aisle’ was the real experience of US political life. This is in stark contrast to the Westminster system of government that arose in England and is used throughout its former colonies. In that system parties always vote as a bloc and if a member of a party votes with the other side they can be thrown out of their party.

So in the US, and probably other countries too, there have been experiences of parties working together to achieve shared goals. In countries where this is the experience then there is a history and practices to draw upon which support seeking after consensus.

Even though the Westminster system has built into it the requirement to be oppositional to the other side, not everything is so black and white. There are many things on which all the major political parties in Australia agree. Foreign policy is not a seriously disputed space, opposition to the death penalty is unquestioned, none of the major parties opposes access to free health care and to cheap prescription drugs, and the list could go on. So another ground that might encourage consensus seeking is to recognise those areas where there had once been a difference and now there is general agreement. What lessons can be learned from the past that can encourage us into the future?

In addition to these things, there is also a place for pragmatism as a driver for seeking consensus. Sometimes opponents can agree to work of a common project because it matters to them for different reasons. In the United States, an area where there is an increasing willingness to co-operate across the political divide is in reducing the size of the prison population. For one side the cost of incarcerating millions of people is a burden on the budget. For the other side, they don’t want to see people going to jail for extended periods of time for minor offences. So the shared interest is reducing the size of the prison population. By working together on this project it is possible for people to understand the perspective and concerns of the other side. From this understanding arise strategies that will meet their needs and so help to keep the prison population lower over time.

So, three things that can help

  • Remember when co-operation has been possible in the past and learn from this. What made it possible? Perhaps there was a crisis (eg war or natural disaster) that meant other things became less important, or there were genuine goodwill and relationships that enhanced co-operation. Learn from positive experiences.
  • Recall where over time, issues that were once contested are now agreed. How have these positions been appropriated into the values system of the “different sides”? What made it possible to move? Why are they not contested now and can we find other issues where collaboration makes more sense than contesting?
  • Identify the big issues on which collaboration will be required for both sides to get what they want. What are the things that have to get done or both sides will continue to lose what is important to them?

Lessons for Churches

As you have been reading this post have you been thinking “what has this got to do with the church?” I think that in many places we are in the same situation as the political climate of our times. Many churches are split along ideological lines and in many places co-operation with those who think differently has stopped.

Can consensus work in churches where there is a lack of shared values? No! However, I do not believe that such churches exist. There are always some shared values. There are always some things on which even the most divided Christians can agree. There will always be something to work on together for the benefit of all sides. But we have to be prepared to look for it.

For conflicted churches or denominations I have the same advice as I offered above.

  • Remember when co-operation has been possible in the past and learn from this. What made it possible?
  • Recall where over time, issues that were once contested are now agreed. How have these positions been appropriated into the values system of the “different sides”? What made it possible to move?
  • Identify the big issues on which collaboration will be required for both sides to get what they want. What are the things that have to get done or both sides will continue to lose what is important to them?

The reason that ideologically and high conflict churches cannot use consensus-building processes is because they just don’t want to co-operate. For reasons of power and control, fear, or disrespect of their brothers and sisters in Christ too many Christians will not work together.

Yes, sometimes they cannot work together because of previously unresolved hurt that has been done to them. But good consensus processes include building safe places and dealing with those experiences.

Co-operation is not optional for Christians

Christ has called all Christians into one body. We have to learn to deal with it! We are one as Jesus and the Father are one. To refuse to live out of that reality is to refuse to live out of the identity that we have been given in Jesus Christ. Not good!!

There is insufficient space here to outline the many and effective strategies for seeking consensus in conflicted churches. Feel free to browse the blog posts for where some aspects of this have been addressed in the past. For example: Uniting the Church – Is it Possible?

However, for the present, I just want to challenge you to look for the ways that consensus building can be encouraged. Please do this in even the hardest places for the sake of the witness of the church. In these times more than any other it is an evangelical imperative to seek common ground among Christians. For as Jesus observed, it is through our unity that the mission of the church will be advanced (John 17:21).

Ambiguity: anxiety or opportunity?

Ambiguity – or the space of not knowing – is an uncomfortable place for many people. Even though uncertainty may be unwelcome it is also a place of opportunity.

rawpixel-com-256642

Ambiguity: an unwelcome visitor?

I know a great many people for whom uncertainty is a cause of great internal stress. Ambiguity might mean that they don’t know what is going to happen next, or whether someone is going to behave well, or unresolved issues sit on the table. At such times they get stressed.

Ambiguity – or the space of not knowing – is an uncomfortable place for many people. It arrives unbidden when that which we know or could expect is thrown into uncertainty. There is no doubt that such uncertainty can be disorienting and as such a cause for concern.

Even though uncertainty may be unwelcome it is also a place of opportunity.

The Discomfort of Ambiguity

This is the title of a blog post by Rev Dr John Squires. I am indebted to my colleague and fellow Uniting Church Minister for stimulating the following thoughts.

In his post, John makes reference to a book by William Bridges entitled Managing Transitions (2009). For him, transitions have three stages

  • the letting go
  • the neutral zone of being in-between; and finally
  • the connection into a new place, a new way of being.

Ambiguity and consensus building

Conventional debating styles assume a rigid commitment to staying with our starting convictions. Debating, and the parliamentary style of decision-making that uses it, like certainty. Debaters are supposed to resist every new idea raised against their point of view. Debating hates ambiguity – the idea of uncertainty!

In contrast, consensus-building processes are not premised on people firmly holding on to predetermined positions. Rather, they need people to be open to changing their view. Consensus-building requires that people will be prepared to let go of their first ideas or thoughts. Indeed people in this process are genuinely open to letting go of their current positions. Consensus-building encourages people to enter into the “endings” which Bridges sees as the way to something new.

Staying in the Neutral Zone

When people are disoriented through having to let go of what they know the tendency is to seek equilibrium as quickly as possible. Like a person drowning in a raging sea, they grasp after any flotsam or jetsom floating nearby in a search for security.

There is no doubt that when we realise that we must let go of a deeply held view it can be unnerving. Leaping into the unknown when our deepest convictions and practices are found to be wanting can be very stressful. It’s natural to want to lock in on an alternative as quickly as possible! However, this is a grave mistake and can short change the path to growth and new insights.

If you are a person who gets stressed when there is ambiguity I encourage you to take a deep breath and slow down. Ask yourself, and talk with others, about why you struggle with uncertainty. Address those needs in yourself that make it hard for you to end things and live in a place of not knowing for a time. Find companions in that place but do learn to stay there for a while. This place is not your enemy.

As Bridges encourages, in that neutral, in-between zone, there is a need for us to nurture and develop a capacity to live within the discomfort of ambiguity which arises during the experience of loss, as we move away from the familiar.

Growing Possibilities in the Neutral Zone

In his blog post, John Squires reflects upon the story of the so-called “Prodigal Son”. In the story, the younger son reflected on what it might mean to return shamed and impoverished. The father wondered what the various options were for his relationship with his son as he approached from a distance. The other son wrestled with how his relationship with father and brother might unfold with the brother’s return. These were times of openness, wondering, fear and possibilities.

Without the uncertainty generated by changing the known – ending the familiar – new futures could never begin. Stepping into the neutral zone made new futures possible. Living with ambiguity made amazing things possible.

Only by living with the discomfort of ambiguity is it possible to imagine new beginnings. Ambiguity – the place of not knowing – is the place for creativity and imagination to flourish. Ambiguity can be both anxiety-inducing and a God given opportunity.

Conclusion

Consensus-based discernment processes can be experienced as stressful by some people. Not knowing how the discussion is going to unfold and where the decision will land can cause some people quite a bit of anxiety. Yet, this place of ambiguity is the creative space – the place of opportunity.

As Bridges notes, if we are able to sit within the neutral zone and engage with the discomfort of ambiguity, then we can experience change and transition as a constructive and life-giving experience. The neutral zone can become a pivot away from the past, into the future. That is the best outcome of a process of transition.

Culture and Consensus

Culture – help or a hindrance?

Can culture make it impossible for consensus building discernment to work? Yes, sadly it is the case that some cultures cannot use consensus. Obvious examples of a culture that prevents collaboration, respect for all voices and a willingness to change include:

  • rigid hierarchies with one or two leaders at the top
  • conservative cultures where preservation of the status quo is the highest priority
  • groups where relationships are defined by power or status and this reduces capacity for all to be involved

When the right to participate in decision-making is determined by status/rights or power then it cannot include all the voices. Where a community do not respect all its members then leaders will not listen and learn from others. If a group goal is to preserve what already exists then there is really nothing to talk about at all.

Gillette and lessons about culture

On January 13th this year Gillette released an advertisement with the tag line “We believe: the best that men can be.”  At the time of writing it has received over 30 million views.

The goal of the advertisement was to draw attention to the behaviours of some men.  In particular, the advertisement drew attention to sexism, tolerance of violence as a way of resolving problems, sexual harassment, and bullying. This type of behaviour was criticised because it is not being the best that a man can be.

At face value, it seems like a no brainer to name and shame these types of behaviour! In the advertisement, there were examples of men who did not accept these things as normative for men and did something to prevent it. Who could object to encouraging men to respect women, to reject violence and to stand up for people who are being picked on?

Apparently millions of people can object!! To date, 1.4 million people who have viewed the YouTube post have given it the thumbs down. 422,986 comments have been made on the post and most were hypercritical and threatened to never buy their products again. Cable channels in the US went off the charts in criticising the advertisement. So what does that say?

No doubt some will say that not every person who criticised the advertisement supports the behaviour that is denounced in it. The argument goes that some men just object to being tarred with the same brush as all those bad guys – just because they are a man. Somehow they fear that – as men – they are guilty by association. Why should they be judged as being a bad person just because some men do bad things?

What I find interesting about this line of reasoning, and it is present in the comments and media, is that these men don’t identify with the good guys in the clip. How come they don’t puff up with pride at seeing their constructive and healthy behaviour being affirmed before more than 30 million viewers? Hmm? Maybe because they have more in common with the attitudes of the “villains” in the plot than the heroes.

The hugely negative reaction to the Gillette advertisement tells us that there is a deep and wide culture of toxic masculinity in the USA.

Toxic masculinity and consensus discernment

The culture of toxic masculinity is a threat to the operation of consensus-based discernment. The markers of this kind of masculinity include demeaning and commodifying women, using violence to achieve one’s goals, and intimidating those who are different. What happens if the men in your church or group buy into that culture? How can you run a process that hears and respects every voice, welcomes difference and embraces those who have different opinions as gifts from God?

Using the phrase “toxic masculinity” is meant to show that these behaviours are not inherent to being a man. One can be masculine and respect women, refuse to use violence and accept and appreciate those who are different. However, the culture in many western societies has not defined being a man as living in this way. Sadly to be a man in western culture has traditionally been seen as to be strong, not to give in, take what is yours and protect your group, with a good dose of patriarchy and misogyny as the overlay.

Culture can help or hinder the use of consensus-based discernment processes. Sadly, there are many men in the USA and elsewhere who have taken in the dominant culture of toxic masculinity.

Churches and unhealthy male culture

Don’t you believe me? Do you think that churches are only filled with men who have sidestepped the values of toxic masculinity? If you think so then I suggest that you start by talking to women and minorities in your church. Ask them if they have ever experienced sexism, harassment, belittling disrespect or felt pressured to accept what they did not believe by the men in power.

However, the evidence is there for all who have the eyes to see. In the majority of churches, women are denied a voice in the major decision-making processes. Our mind quickly turns to the Catholic, Orthodox and many Anglican communions. But what about those churches that claim to accept women in leadership? How many women leaders are there in reality? How many mega-churches or larger congregations of any theological type can you name where a woman is the lead pastor? If you can name a few I can be sure that as a percentage of leaders it will be very small.

I have been to many church meetings around the world. It has always been the men who shout at others, talk over the top of women, and act as though they have a right to be heard and have their way. Not all men – but plenty of them.

When I visited a very significant church meeting in the USA it was the only church meeting that I have ever attended where I had to put my bags through a metal detector. Violence takes many forms and not all of them are picked up by a metal detector!

How to respond to harmful cultures

First of all, recognise that it exists. Do not be naive and think that you can easily run an effective discernment process when the culture is against you.

Where a culture works against a consensus discernment methodology recognise that it may be the dominant culture but it isn’t the only perspective. Who are the other voices speaking up for an alternative way of living? What are they saying? How can they be encouraged and how can you help the dominant culture to hear them?

Remind people that Christianity is a counter-cultural religion. We are not citizens of this earth but ambassadors for Christ. Teach people about Christian character and behaviour and how that critiques the dominant culture. Invite and challenge people to live out of a Christ centred culture and not the one into which they were born.

Don’t wait for everyone to agree before you start using consensus processes and values in your discernment!! Jesus came into a culture that had present in it the seeds of faithful obedience to the will of God. The majority of people were not on the right track. But Jesus didn’t wait until everyone had changed their mind before he began living in a counter-cultural way. He just got on with the job!

Recognising the challenges that we face as leaders is the key to implementing change. Do not underestimate the power of culture. But also, do not let it paralyse your leadership and faithfulness.

Psychology and Consensus

Man getting lost in a fog

Psychology / our disposition to certain ways of responding to the world is very powerful. How much does psychology influence the preference of a person to take up an “Evangelical” or socially conservative view of the faith? The same question could be asked of socially progressive and theologically “liberal” Christians.

This post is not so much interested in the reason people are “Evangelical” or otherwise. Rather the concern is how do we navigate our relationships and build consensus when psychology is such an influence on our views of the world.

Psychology and religious conservatism

In a previous post, I shared an article that explored the link between a person’s psychological traits and their willingness to stay with their support of President Trump – no matter what he does. I noted there that Trump’s support among “Evangelical Christians” is incredibly high and stable.

It is incontestable that the actions endorsed by the US President, and his behaviour, are far from Christian norms. These norms are of acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God. (Micah 6:8) Even so, Evangelical Christians continue to support him in overwhelming numbers. They do so irrespective of how much his decisions demean, damage and destroy the life of people and the planet.

That article offered some psychological explanations for why people support Trump. I wondered if the same psychological drivers that encourage people to be a rusted on Trump supporter might also be an explanation for why people prefer an “Evangelical” expression of the faith.

Building Consensus Across Psychological Barriers

To say that there may be a psychological disposition to preferring an “Evangelical” or “liberal” expression of faith does not go to the question of who is right or wrong. However, it is important for us to understand this personal background so that we can have a better understanding of one another.

This is important for many reasons. For one, it will help temper a temptation to rush to condemn people for hypocrisy or for not taking the Bible seriously. In addition, it may help us to relate better to people of an “Evangelical” disposition. This may meet their psychological needs in healthy ways or reduce its power. Finally, it helps us to develop consensus building strategies that might actually work. This is because they respond to the psychology of the other person.

Building consensus can seem impossible in the face of apparently intractable differences between people. However, we should not give in too quickly!! Consensus building processes always begin by seeking to understand the needs of the other person. When the needs of the other are understood it might be possible to find ways of meeting those needs.

However, before such conversations can happen at least one party to the conversation must show respect for the other person, care enough about them to try and understand them,  seek to meet their legitimate needs, and to have a toolkit that can help to build consensus.

Psychology and Being an Evangelical Christian

The Psychology Today article referenced in the earlier post identified 14 psychological traits that dispose people to be a rusted on Trump supporter. Only a disposition to racism seemed to offer no clue to why persons might prefer to express their Christian faith within the theological, cultural and social norms of “Evangelical” faith. These dispositions may also explain why some people are inclined to accept hierarchical church structures and Pentecostal expressions of faith.

Some of these traits are nurtured by parts of the Bible. Most though are nurtured by preachers, church culture and social practices in “Evangelical” and other churches. This serves to reinforce and meet these psychological needs.

Following are the 12 psychological traits that it might be wise to take into account when seeking to build consensus. Two do not apply. The suggestions for how to build consensus takes as a given that a person with an “Evangelical” and possibly a Pentecostal expression of faith could be operating out of this trait.

Let me state clearly that I am not saying that every “Evangelical” or Pentecostal Christian is living out of these psychological traits or needs.  However, where people are dogmatic and unrelenting in their position it could be that their actions owe more to psychology than Scripture. When this is so we need to be sensitive and creative in the responses that we make. At this point, an understanding of possible psychological traits may be helpful.

1. Practicality Trumps Morality

This is where people want to win at all costs. They consider that their goal is the most important one. In its worst expression, we see Christians who will manipulate others, lie, and seek the harm of others so that they get what they want. This is a very ugly witness for Christians to offer!!!

When this psychology takes over it can seem impossible to develop a consensus. When people want different things – opposites even – then how is consensus possible? The key here is to dig deeper into what it is that a person wants. Perhaps they are desiring an outcome, for example, no change to the worship times, but the need is different. Get behind the ask to what need is really driving them. Maybe then other solutions are possible. It is even possible that you can appeal to a higher goal. For example, a person may really prefer 11.00am for worship for reasons A, B and C. However, they may also care that the church connects with a new demographic and grows. So they will put aside one desire in favour of a goal that they value more highly.

Of course, there will always be people who want to get their way and will do anything to stop others. But by exploring through conversation to find deeper motives, or by appealing higher goals it may be possible to find an agreed solution.

2. The Brain’s Attention System Is More Strongly Engaged by Certain Stimuli

Emotional arousal keeps some people engaged. So it is possible that they will be more emotive, perhaps use more extreme language, quite likely they will engage with issues at a visceral level.

We need to respect that not everyone prefers to explore issues from a “head” / mind level. Rather than be disparaging about people who are emotive, think about the ways to engage them at that level. This will keep their interest and “speak their language.” This is not about getting into a shouting match. Rather, people are given the chance to speak their mind in ways that work for them. Then the communication back to them can also share emotions because this is what some people connect to as they think about an issue.

3. Obsession with Entertainment and Celebrities

The way the article put this point is: “To some, it doesn’t matter what Trump actually says because he’s so amusing to watch. With the Donald, you are always left wondering what outrageous thing he is going to say or do next. He keeps us on the edge of our seat, and for that reason, some Trump supporters will forgive anything he says. They are happy as long as they are kept entertained.”

OK, this is a hard one to handle. If people get their highs in a church from being entertained and not encouraged to seriously engage with issues that can make it a challenge to work with them on a shared project!

Hopefully, we can tap into other life experiences where they have had to dig deeper than a surface experience of a topic. People do know how to seek understanding but its amazing how many Christians don’t do that as they listen to worship services and in their decision-making processes. Yes, it comes down to convincing such people that not everything is fun and games.

4. Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn

We know that there is a lot of disenchantment in the church about many things. Traditional mainline churches are subject to a lot of criticism from within their membership. When this leads to frustration – because their concerns are not taken seriously – then some people don’t care if the whole thing blows up.

I have seen local churches and even denominations where people are so frustrated and angry they don’t care if the place crashes and burns. Even worse they seem to act in ways that try and make it happen. They become intransigent, aggressive and uncompromising.

The key here is to create genuine spaces of listening where that anger and frustration can get out. It is also essential that people can genuinely influence the outcomes of their group. A consensus building approach knows how to make safe spaces to hear people well. It is committed to vulnerability so that the original proposal is changed in the process. The changes may reflect the concerns of the frustrated, angry people.

People don’t destroy the groups that they value. So give people valuable experiences of the group and remind them of when the group was appreciated by them in the past.

5. The Fear Factor: Conservatives Are More Sensitive to Threat

There is certainly a lot in the preaching of some churches that promote fear and themselves / their message as the answer to that fear. If people have been discipled in a church that encourages fear then it heightens the habit of seeing things through the prism of fear. People become more anxious by default.

However, harder to handle is when the issues on which we seek to build a shared understanding are the topics around what people have been told to be fearful. Many Christians disagree over what to do in response to mass human migration, gender issues, human sexuality, humanitarian crises, etc. In many societies and churches, the fear factor has been played and people have bought into the answers to those fears delivered by those who peddled the fear.

In Australia at present, we are seeing church leaders creating a climate of fear about the future of the family and religious freedom because same-gender marriage is now legal. Perfect love casts out fear. So when met by fearful people all we can do is to create a safe place where it is possible to talk about our fears, offer comfort and hope, and a context in which to reduce fear through personal sharing, exposure to those who are causing the fear, and some good theological and information sharing.

Consensus discernment is committed to taking the time that is needed to bring everyone along. Overcoming fear can take a lot of time!

6. Mortality Reminders and Perceived Threat

“Terror Management Theory predicts that when people are reminded of their own mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they will more strongly defend those who share their worldviews and national or ethnic identity and act out more aggressively towards those who do not.”

When people see the future of themselves, kinship, values group, etc under threat then they turn on the attacker. When Christians engage in these sorts of attacks it can be an appalling departure from acceptable Christian behaviour.

There are two key options in this situation. First, help people find common ground with you. Do not let people position you as the enemy. Affirm shared values and the bonds that come from being Christians together. Avoid demonising and don’t get trapped into accepting the demonising that others do to you. Keep holding out the vision and the practical examples of being together in this challenge.

Secondly, challenge whether the threat / danger is really as big as people want to make out. “What’s the worst thing that can happen?” When people are highly anxious and threatened they want to find an enemy and they want to fight. Don’t be that enemy or target!

7. Humans Often Overestimate Their Expertise

Many issues in life are complex. So it is not surprising that people are often under-informed or misinformed. In such situations, people are often willing to accept the views of their preferred expert. They can be very reluctant to listen to other opinions.

The Dunning- Kruger effect says that not only are people uninformed they do not even know that they are uninformed! Hence they think their insights are adequate.

A critical step in consensus discernment is to take time to provide all the information that is necessary for a person to participate in the decision-making. This step allows people to ask questions, to develop understanding and to be informed. Sure if people are so locked into their bias that they will not be open to new views it can be a problem. However, the operating assumption that information is empowering is a significant tool for encouraging people to learn.

8. Relative Deprivation — A Misguided Sense of Entitlement

To hear many Evangelical, Pentecostal and other preachers you would think that the world as we knew it is ending. Way too many preachers encourage their followers to believe that Christians have lost influence, are under threat from the rights that others are given, and will become a persecuted minority. Then they offer a solution on how to overcome these fears by “righting the wrongs” that Christians have “suffered”.

Pandering to greed and desire for power is never a good look for Christian preachers. If you are involved in a discernment process with someone who has a strong sense of entitlement the answer is not to tell to “stop being so precious”! Although that is a reasonable end game.

Once again sharing feelings can be a doorway to hearing each other better. Taking fears seriously and generating alternative perceptions of reality and how to overcome the “threat” is a pathway to growth.

Sharing some stories from the experience of those who are seen to be privileged is also helpful. This is connected with the next point.

9. Lack of Exposure to Dissimilar Others

A lot of Christians only hang out with people like themselves. This reinforces their prejudices and the narratives around them. In a consensus building process, the planning group should always ask “Who needs to be in the room when we have this discussion?” This may include people who are not decision makers but be people who are affected by decisions.

Consensus processes make space for all the voices that are relevant to decision-making. Also, by using small groups and random table groups for discussion people don’t only talk to like-minded people.

10. Tapping into Collective Narcissism

Collective narcissism is an unrealistic shared belief in the greatness of one’s group. It often occurs when a group believes it represents the ‘true identity’ of a nation or religion. This perspective / psychological trait makes for arrogance and closed-mindedness. 

I am sure that many of us have been in a situation where people consider themselves to be the defenders of the faith and show scant respect for the opinions of others. This attitude is one of the hardest to address in any meeting style. Perhaps the advantage of consensus processes is that it creates the expectation that participants will listen to others, be vulnerable and be open to change.

It is naive to think that anything less than a Damascus Road experience will cause some people to recant of their arrogance. However, it is the case that when the consensus process, rather than combative ones, are used then people do change. The less strident, the more open-minded, the persons who have not solidified too much can be drawn away from such a group arrogance. The result is that the hardcore arrogant and aggressive people become a smaller group and so less influential over time. One thing is certain – picking a fight is only going to harden the aggression coming your way.

12. The Desire to Want to Dominate Others

Some people just love hierarchy and dominating over others. For them, that is the best way to organise the work. Especially if they are in the dominating group! This is far from a healthy pathology and yet it has a long tradition in the church!

Sadly, the church has a history of favouring some groups and putting others down. The privileged in such arrangements (usually men and clergy) don’t like to see the empowerment of others. They resist and this is often one of the reasons they oppose consensus discernment processes – because it empowers the marginalised.

Sometimes all that can be done is to persist in offering a counter view on the nature of the Christian community by persevering with consensus principles. Coupled with the commitment to spending 20% of the time in prayer and devotional activities there is a chance for God’s perspective to reach people. When we pray and fellowship around the Scripture and Holy Communion it is much harder to sustain the hierarchical approach that fosters domination.

13. Authoritarian Personality 

High authoritarians prefer a strong leader. Sometimes one will hear the criticism of consensus processes that nothing gets done. Then it is said that the solution is that we need is a strong leader. Chances are that this is a person who accepts an authoritarian approach to the world. There are plenty of “Evangelical” and other churches that have authoritarian Ministers! So chances are that people who go there actually prefer not to have to make decisions.

While authoritarians prefer an individual to be the boss it is more about having clear directions and being expected to follow them. Consensus discernment seeks to come down to a decision that has very high levels of support – certainty. It also has the theological expectation that people will defer to the wisdom / discernment of the group once a decision is made. Persons with authoritarian personalities can be very loyal to the one to which they pledge allegiance. So encourage them to be loyal to the decisions of the group!

Conclusion

When people are driven by psychological traits this will affect the way that they operate in group decision-making settings. By understanding these drivers it is possible to decide which consensus discernment processes are most helpful in combatting them.

Recognizing the psychological traits that encourage people to operate in a particular way empowers you to make constructive choices about how to behave rather than get sucked into their way of doing things.