Tag: division

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.

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).

Conflict is Your Friend

Conflict is your friend

How does growth happen in a person or organization? What makes learning and new insights possible? Something new shows up! When what we know is challenged by the new (conflict) we have the opportunity to grow as a person or an organization.

No one learns anything without being challenged to revisit what they already know or believe!! Into our life comes something that invites us to think of an alternative to our exisiting behaviour, knowledge, values, beliefs, etc. Two ideas trying to occupy the same space is a conflict. Conflict invites us into a new space. Therefore conflict is our friend because it makes growth possible.

Of course, we are talking about conflict that is handled well. When these contested spaces lead to unhealthy and negative reactions then harm is done. However when handled well conflict – in the sense of choices between different options – is an indispensable gift that makes imcreased maturity possible.

Healthy engagement builds trust and confidence

When people make their different points of view known they can do it in a way that is encouraging of discussion or in a way that is attacking. The latter approach generates negativity and breaks down relationships.
However when our different perspectives, knowledge and experience are shared in a humble and gentle way relationships are strengthened. By sharing important things – even different ones – people deepen their relationships.
By being able to work through our differences in ways that build up, and not pull down, we can learn to trust each other. We can believe that the other person wants the best for us and themselves. When we succeed in navigating significant differences we build confidence in our interpersonal skills and the quality of our relationships.

Relationship can be restored and strengthened

We all have times when we don’t welcome new ideas or the people who bring them! When handled badly conflict can break relationships. But what if you don’t let those bad feelings fester? Things can improve.
Don’t run away from the people with whom you have had a bad experience in conflict. If you possibly can, seek them out and try to start the conversation over. Don’t put the blame on them for the strain in the relationship. Own your part and let them decide what they will own up to. Use “I” statements so that you keep the focus on what you have seen, heard, said, felt, interpreted and done.
My experience is that when I do “the hard yards” in seeking to overcome a negative conflict then it makes the relationship better. There is something deeply satisfying and encouraging when we get over a bad experience of conflict. Such experiences give us confidence that if we can fix this then we can handle bigger issues too.

Issues are decisively resolved

One of the best things that you can do when you have a conflict is to admit that it exists. Ignoring conflicts never causes them to go away. Instead they undermine relationships and often lead to negativity.

When there are differences of opinion in a group get them out in the open. Help people to share their thoughts.  Create a safe space for talking together. Specifically invite people to share their ideas. Use processes that are respectful of all voices and give them a chance to be heard.

Once you know what the issues are then you can resolve them. A consensus building process is a great way to get all the ideas out there and to get to a resolution. No one likes problems that just keep hanging around! Name the differences, talk about them and work out a solution together.

New insights and discoveries made

Once again The Beatles got it right. They sang “Nothing you can know that isn’t known. Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.” (All You Need is Love, Yellow Submarine, 1969). Yep – we need people to share their knowledge and insights. Unless people do that then we live stunted, narrow and ineffective lives.

I can never understand churches that think they already know everything and refuse to listen to new ideas! Churches that stop hearing and engaging with new ideas will not gain new insights and discoveries. Any church that says that it has it all worked out is both arrogant and wrong. They condemn their church and members to living as stunted, narrow and ineffective disciples.

A group is energized

“Success breeds success” is an old and accurate saying. When individuals or groups get things done it encourages them to do it again. So when groups learn to cope with differences in a healthy way they are no longer worried about differences. Groups learn that new insights are creative, positive and make good decisions possible.
Groups are energised when conflict is handled well. This is in contrast with groups that are paralysed by conflict because it is such a painful experience. Give energy to your group by helping it to learn and appreciate different points of view and experiences.

People are engaged

A key reason that people behave badly in conflict situations is so that they can get their way. People frighten, bully and belittle opponents to silence them. When people are intimidated in a conflict they withdraw and stay on the sidelines. They are not engaged.

However if you create a positive culture about how to handle differences among people then everyone stays in the conversation. Then people become excited about the new possibilities, or what they are learning from others.

A powerful witness is given

Sadly we live in a world where negative conflict (combat) is the norm. Our societies are at risk of fracturing as groups move into armed camps and enclaves. Our world needs the church to witness to another way of being in community at the points of our disagreement.

The heart of the gospel is the reconcilliation of the whole of creation to God and to one another. What a wonderful hope to offer a world where the different are demonized and attacked!! Christians have an amazing opportunity to point to another way of dealing with difference. It is a way that shows respect, care and openness to the other. Sadly too many churches are caught up in the culture of our times and attack those who are different. My encouragement to you is to see the way that you handle conflict as, probably, the most evangelical act that you can engage in at this time.

Conclusion

Conflict is like fire. It is both dangerous and comforting. It is life threatening and life enriching. Like fire, handled well, conflict makes our life so much better.

10 Rights You Have In A Conflict

Christians can be too “nice” in a conflict

As a rule Christians don’t like to be assertive or to make problems for other people. Somehow Christians have got the message that the proper thing to do is to keep things peaceful.

Keeping the peace is not a Christian virtue. Bad people get away with bad behaviour because not enough people are prepared to resist what they do and say. Therefore, it is important to understand your rights when you are involved in a negative form of conflict. You don’t have to put up with bad behaviour – stand up for yourself!

Your Rights in a Conflict

Here are 10 things that you are entiteld to do or expect if you are in a conflict that has turned unhealthy.

1.  Say “no”

If you are being pushed around or are having demands put on you then refuse to go along with it. So, usually, bullies win because they manage to wear down the resistance of others. Refusing to accept the dictates of an aggressive opposite in an argument is the first right that you have. Saying “no” can put a spike in the wheels of runnaway aggression.

2.  Object to how you are treated

Don’t accept that the other person can control the way that things are going to be done. Be prepared to say that “this is not the way we do things around here.” Remind the person (and others) of the expectations that your community has about how people behave. If your group has a “Behavioural Covenant” or “Code of Conduct” now is the time to refer to it.

3.  Disagree

Be ready and willing to present an alternative case. The combative person is not the only one with good ideas. Trust your experience and wisdom. And be ready to share it with the wider group. Just because someone has a different opinion to you does not mean that you have to be silent.

4.  Speak up for yourself

When people move from a positive and constructive approach to conflict they can get domineering. So if a person is behaving like they are the only ones to listen to then it is time to speak up. Don’t wait for an opponent to ask what you think. They won’t because they don’t care what you think.

It is important to learn to be assertive and to step into the fray. Don’t wait for permission and don’t wait for other people to speak for you. Trust yourself and get into the debate.

5. Express affection

Just because other people want to put down their opponents and turn them into enemies it doesn’t mean that you have to be like that too. Loving one’s enemies is a Christian virtue. So make sure that you never lose sight of the humanity of the other person in the argument. Show them respect, consideration and concern for their needs. Showing affection can be a game changer for the mood of a meeting.

6.  Say “I am angry”

Owning emotions is honest and healthy. If emotions get buried because people do not think they should express anger, or other emotions, then they will pop up somewhere else.

You are allowed to be angry. Anger is a legitimate emotion and when properly expressed can help the person and the process in which they are engaged. Important to note is the value of using “I” statements. Saying “I am angry” is far more helpful than “You make me so angry”.

7.  Say “I am hurt”

At times people don’t realise the harm that their behviour or words are doing to other people. If no one tells them then it is easy for them to keep on doing the same thing.

Your feelings are important and you don’t have to put up with the hurt caused by the behaviour of others. Once again “I” statements are very powerful at these times.

8.  Risk being wrong

When we are in difficult situaitons it is possible that we have misunderstood someone. So at times we need to take the risk and check in with a person about whether we have heard them correctly. In a tense situation don’t get fooled into thinking that you are always in the right. Take the risk of getting good information by asking if you have correctly understood the other person.

9.  To apologize

It’s alright to admit that you have made a mistake and to apologize for it. Many a conflict continues because one or more of the parties lacks humility. You have the right to admit when you have made a mistake and to get things back on an even keel with an apology. You have the right to be hopeful that strained relationships can be repaired through a genuine apology.

10. Others?

What rights would you add to the list? Remember that the rights that you want for yourself are the rights that you also have to give to others.