Tag: change

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.

Violence and disagreement

Violence as a response to disagreement

What’s wrong with this picture?!!

Apparently in US political discourse it is fine to point a gun to show that you don’t like something! A US Senator is running this advertisement. In it he shoots at a document that represents the views of his political opponents.

There are too many people who think that the way to oppose something is to be violent towards it. The symbolism in this advertisement says that this is OK. It doesn’t matter what your politics, or views on a subject, violence is always wrong!

It is both apalling and alarming that a sitting US Senator thinks that it is OK to use the symbolism of violence and death as a way to express dissent. There is no pleasure to see that 2,925 people love that post. That is thousands of people shouting their approval for shooting first and asking questions later (maybe skip the questions bit). Tragic, distressing and unacceptable.

Blessed are the Peacemakers (Matthew 5:9)

The children of God are peacemakers. The children of God

  • seek reconcilliation,
  • offer and seek forgiveness
  • strengthen the chords that bind
  • never lose sight of the fact that God loves those that we might want to hate
  • resist the  accepted norms of violence and oppression in society.

In churches around the world there are people who think it is OK to injure others, to lie about and demean their opponents, who cheat, harm and use their power to win battles over their opponents. Shame! Such people can never claim to be the children of God.

Violence and Consensus Building

It is the aggressive behaviour of people in the churches that is the greatest encouragement to finding a new way of making decisions. At the same time it is the violent / aggressive behaviour of opponents to consensus based discernment that is one of the greatest obstacles to its introduction.

Consensus based discernment is counter cultural in most places. To move to it in our churches calls for courageous leaders who denounce the abuse, intimidation and aggression that passes for “robust debate” in too many churches today.

The Senator’s advertisement seeks to make  a culture of violence normal, acceptable, to be expected. In too many churches the way disagreements are handled seeks to make  a culture of violence normal, acceptable, to be expected. We must stop making violence seem normal!

Prophetic courage is needed

It is time for all the peace-making children of God to stand up against violence in the church (and anywhere they see it). Speak a powerful word of hope that there is a better way to be in communnity around difficult conversations. Offer the vision of consensus building discernment as an alternative world view to the one that normalizes violence.

But be warned! Matthew 5:11 & 12 may happen to you if you are a prophet of hope. “Happy are you when people insult you and harass you and speak all kinds of bad and false things about you, all because of me. Be full of joy and be glad, because you have a great reward in heaven. In the same way, people harassed the prophets who came before you.”

WMC Leaders Discuss Consensus

WMC leaders have been learning about consensus. What does consensus mean to cross-cultural leaders?  Terence Corkin and I offered a training session and experience of consensus decision-making at the recent World Methodist Council (WMC) in Seoul, South Korea.

This organization brings together church leaders from around the world that share a Methodist heritage.  Its Executive team (the Steering Committee) wanted to explore a more respectful method of making decisions than Robert’s Rules of Order because. The last Council meeting in Houston showed that there was room for improvement. Like most organizations considering the shift to consensus, they decided to introduce the process to members of the Council at their meeting to get their support.

I interviewed 2 delegates to get their perspective on the process.  Here are their observations on consensus:

Edgar De Jesus, USA

Edgar is from the Philipines and is currently the Pastor of Davis Street United Methodist Church in Burlington, North Carolina.  This congregation is becoming a cross-cultural fellowship. They host a successful feeding ministry every Sunday morning for the poor and marginalized.

On Using Consensus

“Consensus is a timely, respectful process of making decisions that is truly needed in today’s world.”

“It’s not a methodology – it is an invitation to join with God’s Spirit at work in the world.  It is a way of seeing things from a Kingdom perspective or what matters to God. Further, it goes back to our understanding of who we are as a church. Jesus modeled consensus (it’s part of our Christology). He engaged people through conversation around the issues they cared about with mutuality and respect.”

Today, the church continues to be a gathered community that seeks to deliberate and resolve issues in a respectful, creative manner. “Consensus attacks implicit bias, domination and manipulation of people. Our decision-making process should be counter-cultural and model a Christ-like way of working together. You can debate elsewhere – the church must discern the will of God and call upon the Christian community gathered to model a better way.”

Rev De Jesus continues, “consensus is not an end in itself – it’ a beginning.  We acknowledge that we can see Jesus in one another as we talk about the issues we care deeply about discussing. We believe that we are in this together so it helps me have a different take than ‘Robert’s Rules’ to make decisions with each other.”

Edgar believes that the best decisions are made in community after respectful listening and deliberation. “Using a consensus process to discern God’s will disrupts the status quo” he explains. “It turns things upside down so assumptions are brought into the light for examination.” Further, it levels the playing field to allow full participation of everyone – not just the powerful majority. “When this occurs, we make good decisions.”

On Organizations Making the Shift to Use Consensus

Rev. De Jesus believes that “receiving training and experiencing the process is very helpful. For the WMC, it’s a great start, but just as important is using the model in the future.  My hope is that it does not just stay at the top level of the organization but filters through other committees and plenary sessions to engage all of us as we minister in the world. Birthing this process at the WMC is an important step for this organization.”

Edgar believes that it is also vital to bring a consensus discernment process back to our local contexts and communities as an alternative model.

Amelia Meli Koh-Butler

Amelia is a minister in the Uniting Church in Australia. She is an expert in cross-cultural ministry who has held positions in the Synod of South Australia and the National Assembly.  Currently, Amelia is a University Chaplain.

On Why Consensus Matters

“My generation would rather leave an organization or not participate in Robert’s Rules of Order.  It breaks Christian community.”

Cross-Cultural People and Consensus

She shared the connection between consensus and the use of the Samoan Fine Mat. In this practice, “if you have offended someone, you go their house and sit outside under a grass mat spending time reflecting on what you have done to the other that has upset them and how you can restore the relationship.”

Being under the mat opens you to the Spirit. Under the mat, there is a sense of brokeness. We sit; we wait. This time continues until the other person or family comes out and lifts the mat off of you to restore your relationship once again. The truth is: we all long for restoration –  it is by mercy and grace that we are restored. “The grass mat is also a symbolic place where we sit around together to make conversation and connections that reach consensus. It is a practice of waiting on the wisdom of others to reach a good decision. “You must give up your individualism, says Amelia, for the sake of community.”

“In some parts of the world, we hear the words: “I want or I need…”  In Australia, we use the words:  “We hope… or we yearn…” Consensus places the value on what is best for everyone and is entered into with prayerful humility and patience. “It is more vested in the future than in the past.”

Amelia recognizes the many individuals who have held a safe space for her to be part of the Christian community and invite her to use her gifts and talents. She affirms the decision of the WMC Steering Committee to try a consensus model in its business deliberations. “It is a wonderful way to provide a respectful space for all people to participate and reach a decision.”  She observed that women and minorities tend to participate more in groups that use consensus to reach decisions rather than in those that use parliamentary procedures.

Lessons Learned by the WMC

People of various cultural backgrounds appreciate using consensus in groups. In fact, they prefer it as a method to make decisions in faith communities. They find it practical, respectful, and theologically relevant as a way to determine God’s will.

Read here what five other members of the WMC thought about  the consensus process training in Seoul.

9 reasons you may struggle to bring change – and what to do about it (Pt 2)

Bringing about change needs energy! In electricity, resistance is a measurement of the difficulty encountered by a power source in forcing electric current through a circuit. So it also indicates the amount of power used up in the circuit.

Measuring resistance let’s you know how much energy it will take to get a result. The same applies when bringing change to an organisation. If you use too little energy then the resistance will prevent the power moving through the system. If you have too much energy coming to low resistance then you’ll blow up the circuit!

So it is worthwhile to examine your group for resistance (and other challenges) as you decide the best way to bring about change!

‪1. It just doesn’t fit the official picture.

Churches develop a culture just like any other group. Part of the culture of a group is the way that decisions get made. What this means is that sometimes change doesn’t happen because it just doesn’t fit the “official” culture.

A consensus approach may even be seen to be working in other situations but “that is them” and “this is us”. When something doesn’t feel like a natural fit, or like a clash of cultures, then people resist considering it. Change to something different needs to feel like a “fit” for a group.

Strategies to change culture in a group

The first thing to note is that cultures in groups are complicated. There is not just one culture or value. There are many values in a group. It is just that some get more prominence than others.

So, when thinking about the different cultures of a consensus discernment approach and a parliamentary style, ask where the common ground might be.  By identifying the common values you can then offer consensus building approaches as the way to support the traditional values. For example parliamentary ways of making decisions value the right of anyone to participate in the debate; resist capricious actions by the Chair in favor of democracy; value clear reasons and principled decision-making; and want people to accept the final decision; among others. These are all held in common with consensus building approaches to decision-making!

Talk about the common values. Give prominence to the once that align with consensus based approaches. Then recommend consensus strategies that affirm and support the group’s cultural values. This is not so much about changing a culture as realigning its priorities so that it is more true to what it says. Now that could change how things look and feel!

Change of culture often requires that the dominant culture is challenged. One great way to do this in the context of church meetings is to remind people of the broader culture of the Christian faith. Many times people behave in meetings in ways that just don’t look like mature Christian behavior. So point out the culture of the group and what we understand to be the proper culture of the church.  A Bible study on the character of Christian community is a great tool to help people reflect on their practice. Or develop a worksheet that lists the practices of the group in one column and Christian virtues in another. Get people to draw links between them and see how many are not aligned with Christian virtues – or could be changed to better reflect / support Christian practices.

2. A lack of people who understand how the process works.

Absolutely an issue!! When people have a bad experience of a consensus building process it can put them off it for a very long time. It’s a pity the same doesn’t seem to happen when Roberts Rules of Order give people a bad experience!

Induct, train and coach

It is not fair or smart to expect people to change to a process that they do not understand. Therefore before bringing in any change you have to train people in the process. In the context of a meeting you need to induct them by walking through the key points. This is not just the flow of the meeting and the techniques. It is also very important to speak about the values that lie behind the process – the “why” and not just the “how”.

The times I’ve been involved in ‘unsuccessful’ consensus decision making the main problem has been that the meeting chairperson doesn’t understand, or sufficiently understand, the process. Therefore this key leader cannot help people to use it well. It is impossible to overstate the importance of thorough training for Chairpersons and others who will lead the process. Key leaders also include the meeting secretary, people presenting proposals, small group leaders and the Facilitation Group (if using them).

Even the number one ranked tennis players in the world have a coach. So it makes sense that when you are using a new process you should have a coach. Don’t underestimate the value of having someone alongside you as you learn to implement the consensus approach to discernment. The coaching can include helping you to prepare, comprehensively, for the meeting; responding to questions and scenarios that you expect to face or have met in a meeting; even being present at a meeting to assist you on site. I encourage you to think about what kind of coaching option is best for you.

3. Things get really confusing and the discussion rambles on

A very common complaint is that because consensus often seems to be asking people why they can’t agree to what has just been said, the talk just goes on and on. “We never seem to get anywhere” is a complaint that I have heard a bit.

Related to this concern is that many people don’t know what they are making a decision on. The ramble leads to confusion about what is being discussed and therefore what has been decided. Clearly, a consensus approach isn’t helpful when it ends in an untested ramble and no one knows what was decided. Deliberation has to end in a decision or no discernment has happened.

When the decision taken is not clear to people then you often have people saying later that “I didn’t agree to that”. Or, for other reasons, there is less support for a decision than there should be.

How to cut through the ramble and confusion

The first thing to do is to have a Chairperson who understands the process! When asking for input from people who are showing a blue card there are more options than asking “Why don’t you agree?” That can be a useful question but it often leads to the dead ends that were discussed above.

There isn’t space here to go into all the training but Chairpersons and other leaders need to hold a key goal in mind as they think about how to move the discussion forward. The goal of the process is to build consensus.

If we are going to achieve that goal we need to be exploring what will overcome the reasons that a person is showing a blue card. So a follow up question might be “What could be done to help address your concern?” Or if it has come up a few times ask “Does anyone have any ideas about how we can meet these needs?” A Chairperson or secretary could summarise and / or reframe the issues that are being raised (by one or more people) and offer a way forward. There is an end point to the process! Keep working to overcome the reasons that people cannot support the option that is before the meeting.

Confusion at the point of making a decision is best avoided by being clear at each point on the wording as it is developed. In larger meetings it is a good idea to have the words of the proposal on a screen and make changes as the discussion progresses. The changes can be agreed to as the discussion proceeds. So that by the time the group is ready to conclude the discussion there will be little left to adjust.

At the point of determination always read out the words that will be recorded as the decision of the meeting. Just because the process is incredibly fluid doesn’t mean that it has to be sloppy at the end!

4. We don’t need training in how to be Christian!

I have certainly met people who think that it is very judgemental and unfair to suggest that they don’t know how to behave in a Christian way. As a result, they resist any reflection on their meeting practice and training in how to do things better.

Let’s do some theology

I agree that love is natural (for a person born of water and of the Spirit). That’s a theological affirmation. Does that mean that we then know how to live the Christian life – in every part of our life? I’m sure we don’t have time for a treatise on justification and sanctification / conversion and holiness – but surely that is relevant. Being Christian doesn’t prove that we know how to get it right all the time. So the faithful Christian posture is always humility and openness to correction.

In the context of meeting processes we can easily think about the relevance of a conversation on what love would look like in a Christian meeting. A Bible study on 1 Corinthians 13: 4ff might be a good place to start.

The other tac to take is that we are not just talking about values and character training. We are talking about skills training. Being a Christian doesn’t mean that people have no need to learn how to listen well; to find words that invite participation and show respect; to be humble, vulnerable and excited by the potential that different perspectives bring; etc. Heaven knows that I’ve needed to learn how to do these things!

5. Rushing to an agreement because it seems bad to question a proposal

There was a fascinating example of the consensus process at work in a recent meeting of a Uniting Church in Australia (UCA) Synod. A major proposal for change and refocus for  youth ministry in the Synod was put forward. When it was presented people were asked their first impressions. It was strongly supported and the Chairperson quickly moved to have the Synod determine the proposal. All orange cards – except one. To everyone’s astonishment, it was the proposer who held up a blue card.

He said that he felt the project was too important to be so easily agreed to. It  actually warranted more discussion so that the Synod was sure that it had fully understood what it was committing to. So there was more discussion, with people engaged with the complexities and challenges in a deeper way.

‪When a little while later it came again for determination the proposal was unanimously approved.

‪The point of this is that the idea of ‘consensus decision-making working’ should not be taken merely as ‘getting all orange cards held up’. As the proposer of the Synod proposal pointed, out rushing to a consensus can sometimes be a bad decision. The process is intended to facilitate discernment and some issues do require more work than others.

Slowing things down

One of the most important outcomes of consensus processes is that they build the strength of support for a decision. That decision may be either for support or putting an idea aside. When we rush to a decision without deliberation then this important building of confidence that “this is the way to go” is forfeited. So slow things down. Make it clear that there is no such thing as a foolish question. If something looks like a ‘motherhood motion” then get people talking in table groups around some well constructed discussion questions. For example: “What questions come to your mind as you hear this proposal?” “What might people who have not heard this presentation have to say about the proposal?” “Does the proposal address all the possible considerations?” The particular questions (usually only one or two used each time) will be shaped by the proposal and the context.

Another way to slow down the rush to a decision is to remember that in consensus decision-making there isn’t a vote. It is a determination. Holding this distinction before us helps to reduce the risk of using the cards as simple voting cards and so undermining the process by drawing people into thinking “yes” or “no”. Orange doesn’t mean “yes” and “blue” doesn’t mean “no”. Blue cards mean (among other things) “I am not ready yet.” Asking if people are ready to make a decision may lead to a different response than asking are they ready to agree to the proposal.

Conclusion

There are always things that will help and hinder the implementation of consensus based discernment. I hope that these couple of posts have given you encouragement that there is always a way to bring about change.

Frankly, the best way to get through these problems is to just have a go at it. learn by doing and grow your capacity through experience, study and reflection on your practice. If you have any comments or questions then drop us a note here, on our Facebook page @makingchurchdecisions or drop me a line at terence@makingchurchdecisions.com

9 reasons you may struggle to bring change – and what to do about it! (Pt 1)

When groups first try a consensus approach to discernment they can come up against obstacles. Today I start to look at 8 struggles that prevent consensus decision-making from being effective. Better still I offer responses to each of them!

Other common resistance points are covered in Chapter 6 of The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together  “Yes ….but …. Addressing Resistance”.

1. Tradition. “We’ve always done it this way. Why change?”

This is a very common explanation for why people don’t embrace change. People know what they like and they like what they know. Yet most people don’t usually put it as bluntly as saying “we’ve always done it this way.”

What we usually see is an inbuilt inertia in groups that make any change difficult. The tracks have been laid down over time and that’s the way things run. So the key to maximizing the chance of change is to explore where these tracks are taking you, or discuss the way decisions are made in other contexts, or introduce key elements of a consensus approach into the established processes.

Identify negative outcomes of current processes

For example, bad feelings after meetings, poor decisions, lack of buy-in, exclusion of some people/perspectives, etc. Use an annual review of the performance of your Board, Committee, Congregation, etc as a context in which to raise a discussion on whether your current approach is working for you. This may start a helpful discussion on what needs to change.

Explore alternatives from other contexts

I wonder if the people who resist consensus in meetings use the same methods/processes to make decisions in families, as a couple, or in business negotiations. Certainly, the western parliamentary approach is in sharp contrast to the way in which other cultures have traditionally made decisions. The issue here is “Whose tradition are we talking about?” It is only one tradition and it is a very narrowly applied practice.

There are many opportunities for continuing education for Boards, Committees and church members in general. Create a learning event where alternative ways of making decisions are explored. Perhaps it could be in the framework of understanding how a different cultural group makes decisions, or a workshop on how to engage in dialogue with family members, or invite a local community action group to talk about their work and how they get to agreements and commitment. Often these groups use consensus decision-making because they cannot force volunteers to do anything that they don’t want to do. The focus doesn’t even have to be on church meeting procedures! You can extrapolate later from the learning into that discussion.

Introduce consensus processes into your current meetings

Consensus building values and techniques can be present in a parliamentary style of meeting. As an add-on they will not change a culture but they can provide a taster of what is possible when change is made. Examples of things that a Chairperson can do include: make sure that everyone understands the issues before starting the debate; include more prayer and spiritual disciplines in the meeting; create spaces where alternative voices can be heard; don’t rush to a vote just because it looks like there is a clear majority; and more. Chairpersons should lead into an alternative experience of Christian community around decision-making. Change can be gradual and incremental – until there is ownership of the decision to make real change.

2. Some people need to “win”

Winning is “fun”. It’s natural that when people value a position that they want to see it happen. I’m sure we have all been in that situation. However what is embedded in this comment is insidious. There are people who actively resist and undermine a move to consensus because they know how to get their way under the current rules. Getting their way has become the prime goal and they do not want to empower others to have a chance of changing the outcomes. They want to keep control.

I have met people like this in local and international meetings. It is both sad, disappointing and serious. Changes in the power balance affect who has influence. Some people get this and try to keep ahead of the curve by shutting down the chance for change. There are solutions but they need to be tailored to your context. If this is your situation maybe you need a coach to help you work it through.

However, in addition to handling the pushback from cynical and frightened power brokers, there are conversations that can be fostered. Even people who like to get their preferred decision in a church meeting are willing to count the cost. Very few people embrace a pyrrhic victory.

I am sure that you have seen many examples of where the “win” that was achieved came at a high price. It could be as serious as people leaving the church, a significant drop in income, loss of morale, the development of factions, or loss of support for a pastor. The losses might be more subtle: the person who stops volunteering, loss of a skilled person on the church Board, people don’t turn up to congregational meetings because of the atmosphere, a negative vibe develops in the congregation, etc.

Maybe the people who think they are winning are not winning at all. Develop a case study on how the handling of a decision led to negative consequences for a congregation or group. It doesn’t have to be from your congregation but if there is a recent example I encourage you to be brave enough to name it. Focus particularly on developing a “ledger” of wins on one side and losses on the other side. Get people to put a value (not all will be a $ value) on the “entries” on each side of the ledger. The lesson that people are encouraged to learn is to be aware of the consequences of their actions and to not just focus on the task of “getting the decision I want”.

A great follow up – maybe at the next meeting – is to explore “What could we have done differently that would have avoided or reduced these costs?” That’s where your knowledge of the whole range of consensus-based discernment tools will allow you to shine. The most comprehensive collection of resources for this is in our book The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together 

3. We don’t need cards because everyone here is able to speak up.

This is quite a common perception. The orange and blue cards are a very important part of the Uniting Church in Australia’s consensus process. They are also used in the World Council of Churches, the World Communion of Reformed Churches and other places. They are also often seriously misunderstood.

The idea in this resistance point is that the cards are the way to get attention so that you can get the floor. So if you believe that everyone is able to contribute due to the healthy culture and processes of the meeting then it seems like you don’t need cards. The cards are more than the equivalent of lining up at the microphone to get the Chairperson’s attention. But let’s start the conversation on the terms that it is offered.

In my experience, such a statement is very rarely accurate. There are always people who remain silent. They do so for many reasons. It is not just because they cannot get the attention of the Chair.

As a test for this hypothesis have a person quietly keep tabs on the names of who speaks, the frequency and time taken by various speakers over a few meetings.  Report on the results.  This could make for an interesting conversation.

However, the cards serve a much richer purpose than indicating a desire to speak. Members are to show a card whenever a person makes a contribution. If they are warm to a comment then they display the orange card. If they are cool to the idea or not persuaded by it they show blue. This process encourages active listening. Also, it allows every person to indicate their perspective – without the need for speaking. In fact, the opposite of the opening statement is true. You actually need the cards so that everyone can contribute!

4. Power imbalances

Power is real and some people have it in groups and others do not. When power is used to limit the participation of all people then consensus discernment will struggle. Not all power is malicious or used deliberately to put people down. Although sometimes it is.

For example:

  • Some lay people don’t think they should argue with Ministers
  • In some cultures women or young people don’t value their voice
  • Patriarchy exists in a lot of churches and oppresses women
  • Language and education can give more power to some participants
  • Knowledge is power – who understands the business or process best?
  • What other examples can you add?
Plan to deal with power

You are very wise not to underestimate the importance of power dynamics. So once you have taken it seriously it’s important to do strategic thinking ahead of time on how to address power imbalances.

There are a number of strategies available in addition to a well led use of consensus processes. Consensus processes make it possible to address power imbalances but they have to be used very well to do so.

Preparation includes thinking about the power imbalances and what strategies can be put in place to limit their power. Examples include: deciding when translation is required; how to ensure everyone has the same information; when small group discussions (maybe in cultural, gender or age groups) can help people to find their voice that can then be fed back into the larger group. As you prepare for your meeting list the power dynamics and line up alongside them the tools that help to overcome them.

Also the leaders must model alternative ways of being in community. They  must demonstrate and support a culture of collaboration and equality.

Conclusion

I encourage you to respond to pushback in a way that is respectful and consistent with the values of consensus discernment. Ask questions so that you understand what they are saying. Probe for what is behind the comments. Assume goodwill until there is a good reason to do otherwise. Strengthen your fellowship in the face of difference.

Once you understand the issue before you there are simple and practical things that you can do that make a constructive response. Don’t argue but rather invite exploration through the types of processes offered in this article.

Change is possible! Next week I’ll look at some other things that may cause consensus to struggle.

‪