Category: Consensus

Community based decision-making process – 3rd step: deliberation and decision

In any decision-making process deliberation and decision is where most people want to rush. This is the part of the process that most people think about when they talk about making decisions. It is the very heart of a decision-making process.

This is the 3rd post in a series of four posts that walk through the steps required for effective community based decision-making. Step 3 is deliberation and decision. Step 1 is preparation, step 2 is invitation and step 4 is implement the decision.

The material below is expanded upon in the book: “The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together” in pages 93 – 95 and 186. You can get your copy at Amazon.

Before the deliberations begin

We are absolutely convinced that when you complete the first 2 steps properly (Preparation and Invitation), then this step is a real delight.

First a reminder. Because this process is community-based, gathering the community for this work is crucial. Therefore people should know the issue(s) in advance and receive all relevant materials before the meeting. They should come to the meeting with a sense of prayer and wonder at what God is about to do through them. Supported this step with deep prayer and reflection. Sadly, some people come to meetings loaded for bear. That is, they take sides in advance and are convinced that they need to argue their point. Winning is their motivation. However, nothing is further from the truth of what community based discernment is about!

Here is a basic outline of an agenda for the deliberation and decision-making part of a discernment process.

Gather the Community

Participants are reminded, affirmed and built up as a community in this part of the meeting. When done well people will:

  • be welcomed
  • share a time of worship or devotion
  • build community
  • set boundaries or guidelines to complete the work ahead
  • review and agree to the agenda with appropriate break times
  • receive an overview of the consensus process.

Information Phase

Most leaders tend to ignore or limit this part of the meeting. Many questions and confusion easily arise when this happens. The issue or topic to be discussed is presented and relevant supporting material distributed.

Often this material takes the form of a petition or proposal to considered. Time must be given to answering questions on the topic so everyone is clear what they are being asked to do, understand the matter before them and the implications of their decision.

An often overlooked important piece of information is what is important to the decision makers as they consider the issue. People decide things on what they think is important. If other people don’t know what matters to others then they will not know where each other are coming from. Worse still, important needs and concerns will not surface. This means that all the issues will not be addressed and the full range of possible outcomes will be cut off.

Deliberation Phase

It is very important that you provide enough time for this phase. This is where creative options surface and the shape of the decision starts to come into focus.

In Robert’s Rules of Order, this is often a time of making amendments and substitution which can be confusing. In a community-based consensus process, it is a time for respectful conversation and consultation with one another to share experiences, hopes, values, feelings, and theology on the proposal. By doing this you begin to see what is acceptable in the proposal and whether there are other ways to achieve goals.

There are many ways to help these sorts of discussions and to capture the developing consensus. One valuable technique to foster these conversations is to form smaller groups of 6-8 people to seek direction.

Determination / Decision Phase

This is the place in the meeting where the decision is made. Perhaps the decision is that it is not time to finalise the issue. So the matter will be referred to a group for further work. That group will then bring back the next phase of the discernment in a new proposal.

Often, a group decides they have had enough conversation and are ready to share alternate ideas gleaned from conversation and prayer in the Deliberation Phase.  If you have completed the previous phases with integrity, there may be a clear cut sense of direction. This is the point where leaders ask the group if they are ready to make a decision. A revised petition or proposal may be presented to the entire group from feedback in small group sessions, or through other strategies.  Remember the point is to draw from the wisdom of the community.

Ultimately it is time to make the decision. This can be done with a show of hands, ballots, or other means. Once the decision is made it should be documented so anyone not present at the meeting understands what has happened and what the next steps will be.

Conclusion

Close the meeting by thanking people for their participation and hard work. Where appropriate end the meeting with an acknowledgement of what the group has worked on and been through. This may be a time for a prayer or song.

I am deeply troubled when a group says that this work takes too much time. They prefer a simple yes or no vote. The answer is simple: take just enough time to discern the will of God on a matter with your brothers and sisters. Then people have ownership of the decision. You will know that you have spent time wisely when you hear people say that they fully understand the decision and are prepared to support it.

If you do not take adequate time for this step then you will waste time later revisiting the matter, or suffering from people’s confusion or lack of support. Groups have split over less!

What a wonderful feeling it is when a faith community knows that they have discerned the will of God on the matter and are prepared to embrace it together!

Post your response to this article so that we may hear your experience and insights about making decisions well.

 

 

 

Overcoming our blind spots

overcoming blind spots

Blind spots and me

Blind spots – all of us have differing degrees of ignorance about what is going on inside us. In the previous post, I used the example of white privilege as a case study on blind spots. There I wrote about the reality of them and how they distort our relationships and world view.

It is dangerous for others and harmful to us when we don’t recognize our our blind spots. When we don’t recognize our privilege then we:
    • mess up and don’t make the best response to situations
    • don’t understand the feelings of others
    • fail to provide genuine spaces for all to contribute
    • damage relationships
    • miss out on accessing the best wisdom to address our problems

Blind spots are real and we need to deal with them for the sake of creating healthy communities – Christian and otherwise.

Consensus discernment is hampered by blind spots

Have you ever been in conversation, or perhaps a meeting, where someone is incredibly biased? So often this person doesn’t even realise how their behaviour is excluding or harming others. For them, their attitudes are normal and they assume that everyone else thinks the same. And if they don’t think the same then they certainly should!

I recall working with a church body introducing them to consensus processes. After the presentation, the first three people to speak were all white, male, middle-aged, first world, well-educated clergy. They were all opposed to consensus processes. From their point of view, the parliamentary style of debating was just fine and everyone could do it. It was immediately clear that they just did not recognise the privilege that came from their position as white, male, middle-aged, first world, well-educated clergy! Multiple blind spots prevented them from seeing how other people were disadvantaged by the things that work for them.

Consensus building is seriously disadvantaged when people do not deal with their blind spots. Consensus discernment only works if:

    • all the people in a meeting can contribute
    • the culture and practices make it a safe space to contribute
    • the powerful keep quiet long enough to hear from the weak
    • people are humble enough to be corrected by different perspectives
    • the methods for exploring issues do not privilege certain participants

What can be done?

1. It’s a spiritual problem

The first thing to understand is that these blind spots are a spiritual issue. This is because they prevent us from living as Christ intends. When we live out of our subconscious privilege then we disempower and estrange others which is the antithesis of the reconciliation that God seeks through Christ.

Therefore the first thing that we need to do is to listen carefully to the heart message of the Scripture. In this, we must take on the role of the humble one who expects God to correct us.

Quoting Richard Rohr: “Evil is always incapable of critiquing itself. Evil depends upon disguise and tries to look like virtue. We have to fully cooperate in God’s constant work, spoken so clearly in Mary’s prayer (Luke 1:52) which is always “bringing down the mighty from their thrones and exalting the lowly.” It is the de facto story of history, art, and drama. And we have to get in on the story.”

Groups that seek consensus will create a culture where people can be challenged to see their biases and the weak can find their voice. We have to live the story of “exalting the lowly” and “bringing down the mighty” – even when we are the mighty ones.

2. Spiritual disciplines

If we have a spiritual problem then we need spiritual resources in order to effectively address it. Richard Rohr is a contemplative Franciscan so he offers the experience of his tradition.

“Some form of contemplative practice is the only way (apart from great love and great suffering) to rewire people’s minds and hearts. It is the only form of prayer that dips into the unconscious and changes people at deep levels — where all of the wounds, angers, and recognitions lie hidden. Prayer that is too verbal, too social, too external, too heady never changes people at the level where they really need to change. Only some form of prayer of quiet changes people for good and for others in any long term way.”

The important take away here is that the spirituality of our meetings cannot be some superficial touch of the Bible and a few rushed words of prayer. People in our meetings are full of feelings and in need of correction and healing or both. So we need a spirituality of gathering that makes room for these things to be addressed. These are not things that we put at the start and end like bookends to a collection of stories. They are the story.

3. A deep and genuine desire for equality

Rohr again: “As long as all of us really want to be on top, and would do the same privileged things if we could get there, there will never be an actual love of equality. This challenges all of us to change and not just those folks who temporarily are ‘on the top.'”

This is an attitude of the mind, and orientation of the heart. It requires the saving work of Jesus Christ to have touched our lives and an openness to the Holy Spirit leading us to sanctification.

How sad I find it when I am present at discussions among Christians and arrogance is so obvious. It is as though the experience and the perspectives of others are irrelevant. Yet in the ecclesiology of my church, this is a heresy. The Uniting Church declares that government in the church is a calling from God to women and men who are chosen because God has gifted them for this role. So to deny them processes that help to give them their voice is to insult God. All persons who are present in our decision-making contexts are there because God has gifted them to us. Therefore we do well to create processes that ensure that all can contribute.

4. Live the way of Jesus

“Jesus’ basic social agenda was simple living, humility, and love of neighbour. We all have to live this way ourselves, and from that position, God can do God’s work rather easily.” (Richard Rohr)

Consensus-based processes assume love for neighbour and humility. By building these expectations into the way we discern Christ’s will for his church we are laying down the tracks that will help overcome blind spots. Sometimes we have to learn by doing. Therefore using processes that match what we know is authentic Christian behaviour – even before people are ready to do it – can deliver positive outcomes and change lives. I think it was John Wesley who, when concerned about the poverty of this faith, was told to “preach faith until you have faith”.  So let’s do the things that express and foster faithfulness until they become natural.

Conclusion

It is naive to think that we can avoid subconscious biases influencing our meetings. Therefore the best thing to do is to name the issue right out in front. This will mean that on some occasions we name our privilege and the disadvantage of others so that we can try and work out what to do with it.

It is foolish to think that people will do their own spiritual work before they come to our church meetings. Of course, some will but many will need help. Embed deep spiritual practices into your meeting – especially when biases start to show up and/or things get ugly!!

Create processes that reflect the highest Christian expectations – equality, respect, humility, love, desire for growth and maturity in faith, etc. Lay down the tracks for faithfulness until that behaviour becomes the norm.

Values Trump Facts – Is Consensus-Building Possible?!?

Is there hope for consensus-building when the facts don’t overcome existing values / biases? According to some the answer is “NO!!!” I’m not so sure. Here’s why.

Why don’t facts seem to matter any more?

On May 8th, 2019 David Barker and Morgan  Marietta wrote a piece in Niemanlab. In the article they explored  the impact of the Mueller Report on US public opinion about the President of the USA. Mueller’s investigation into the Trump election campaign and the Russians found no collusion but  areas where there may have been an obstruction of justice by the President.
These two eminent political scientists concluded that the Mueller Report did not move the needle for the vast majority of people in the USA with respect to their attitude to the President. If people already thought that the President was engaged in illegal activities they were confirmed in that view. If they thought the President was innocent then Mueller confirmed it for them.

Values count more than the data

Why does this happen? According to Barker and Marietta it comes down to this. “We found that voters see the world in ways that reinforce their values and identities. If they start with a particular set of values then everything they receive by way of information is interpreted as support of those values. In such a context “fact checking” or hearing “the other side’s point of view” has no impact on changing the mind of people.”
An interesting illustration of this phenomenon is the attitude of Americans about whether there is racism in the USA. Quoting from the article: “… according to our data from five years of national surveys from 2013 to 2017, the most important predictor of whether a person views racism as highly prevalent and influential is not her partisan identification. It is not her general ideological outlook. It is not the amount or type of media that she consumes. It isn’t even her own race. It is the degree to which she prioritizes compassion as a public virtue, relative to other things like rugged individualism.”

What does this mean for consensus-building?

The pessimistic view of the authors is that “Perhaps the most disappointing finding from our studies … is that there are no known fixes to this problem.” Well that’s all a bit disheartening!!! I disagree with them.

The first things that it means for a consensus-building approach are not to try and ram “the facts” down a person’s throat; and secondly do not be disparaging of others as bigots and closed minded.

Findings like those is this article are greatly encouraging to the people who understand consensus based discernment or decision-making. Why? Because it affirms how important it is to get behind the presenting words and feelings. It compels us to look past the first things that people say, and instead attempt to understand what is important to them. Consensus-building processes know that people act out of their values – fears, hopes, identity, world view. These processes want to hear about these things from people. Consensus-building processes take values and identity seriously and respect them.

Where values differ these need to be explored. However, it is a much richer and respectful conversation if we invite others to tell us what is important to them. This is a much healthier and more constructive approach than seeking to persuade them about “the facts”.

The great failure of the parliamentary style of debate and decision-making is that it gets into this world of duelling facts. Then when the debate is over and the vote is taken there is a decision. But in the world we live in today the divisions remain because the values have not changed.

What can be done?

Here are some attitudes and strategies that can be used in a consensus-building context to help avoid the stalemate that comes when facts reinforce values.

  • Get the agreed facts out on the table (even the ones that you don’t like!)
  • Ask people what they conclude from / make of this information.
  • Take a step back and find a way to talk about our values or the things that shape what is important for us. In the church this can include significant faith stories.
  • Speak about our understanding of God and God’s hope for the world.
  • Seek out common values and affirm the common ground. Note that people have many values and some will have precedence at different times. Some we may disagree with, yet many we will share.
  • Explore, with respect and humility, how the options / actions that we are discussing support our shared values.

Optimism can be found for the Christian community in that when we go deep enough we do have a common narrative /vision / hope. Many societies can find this common ground too – if they are prepared to work to find it.

However the great advantage that Christians have is that they have at their foundation the community that God has created through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This common ground is not their choice it is the will of God and our responsibility is to live into that reality. As the Apostle Paul noted there is one faith, one Lord one baptism – one God and Father of us all (Ephesians 4: 5,6).

Conclusion

Of course we have to deal with reality. There are not really ‘alternative facts”.

However we need to understand that it is our values that give meaning to the things that we see. If we are going to get past “duelling facts” and name calling them we have to explore values.  Consensus building processes understand this. They foster this deeper and respectful engagement, and provide the tools for discovering shared hopes and then actions.

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).

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.