Tag: objections to consensus

Cricket and Consensus

What on earth does cricket have to do with consensus?!? In many parts of the world they share a common reputation as being minority activities, that are confusing and take way too long to complete. By way of reputation cricket and consensus have a lot in common in the USA, South America, parts of Asia and Europe.

“Popular” sports aren’t popular everywhere

I’m asking all you people from countries that don’t understand cricket to show a little humility here. Cricket is consistently judged as one of the most popular sports in the world (#2 actually) with a fan base of about 2.5 billion. In Australia alone over 1.4 million people play cricket on a regular basis. That’s about 5% of the country’s population! I guess that it is possible that a sport that is strange to some makes perfect sense to others and is something that they value a great deal.

Consensus based decision making is unfamiliar to many people around the world. Sadly, some think that because it isn’t popular in their country that somehow it isn’t popular elsewhere. However that is far from true. Consensus based decision making is incredibly popular in a lot of cultures and groups around the world. I encourage people from societies that are far more combative in their business meetings to take pause and not negatively judge consensus discernment just because it is unfamiliar.

Just because something is strange or unfamiliar to us doesn’t mean that other people find it wierd.

Cricket and consensus are different to their peers

If you are not familiar with cricket then it can certainly take a while to understand the rules. Once you understand the rules, it can take longer to understand the field placings and the strategies of the teams. Certainly there is no other sport that in any way looks like cricket. But that doesn’t make it wrong.

Baseball, a less popular game than cricket, has its rules. It has some similarities with cricket – people on a field, a bat and ball, places to run, etc. Comparing baseball and cricket has been likened to comparing checkers (drafts) to chess. There are some familiar elements in the two games but they are as different as chalk and cheese.

So it is with parliamentary procedures and consensus discernment. They both involve people in a room, talking with each other and trying to come to a decision. But after that they start to lose their similarity! If we are going to make consensus discernment work then we have to accept that it has different rules.

A big mistake that some adopters of consensus make is trying to keep too many of the rules from the old game. Rather, you should learn the new rules of the new game. Yes it can take a bit of time but you just have to do it. Afterall it’s a different game.

Consensus and cricket are complicated

A major objection to introducing consensus discernment is that it is very hard to understand. The argument goes that its rules are complicated and hard to explain. There is another thing that consensus and cricket have in common – bad press about how complicated the rules are. For the record there are 42 laws of cricket. The rules of baseball don’t look any easier to me!

I don’t know how anyone can say that Roberts Rules of Order are easy to follow. In many regional and international meetings there is a “Parliamentarian” appointed to provide guidance on the rules to the Chairperson of the meeting.

If a meeting process is so complicated that you need a specialist to interpret the rules then that is a very complex set of rules. In contrast I have never seen a consensus discernment process that needs an expert to provide rulings for the Chairperson. Sure, when a system is new there may be a mentor to help. However once it becomes familiar there is no need for a consensus process adjudicator on the stage. The reason for this is that the rules are really simple – work together to find a solution!

Conclusion

As the cricket season gets underway in the Southern Hemisphere I am looking forward to a summer of long (five day / 30 hours) and short (3 hour) versions of cricket. Many of you will think it is a novelty, strange and complicated. It isn’t if you come from the sub continent, Australasia, South Africa or England!

Next time you are tempted to consider that consensus discernment is novel, strange or complicated just remember – if you come from another place it may be normal, familiar and simple.

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.

‪

Why isn’t consensus embraced?

If consensus is so wonderful then why doesn’t every group take it up? In a recent post, I spoke about 16 wins that come from using consensus-building approaches. So, if it achieves so may good results why is there resistance to consensus-based discernment?

Nothing is broken

There’s an old saying: “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it!” There are many people who think that the parliamentary model works just fine. So they don’t see any point in going to all the trouble of learning this newfangled consensus stuff!

The people who are content with the current approach are the people for whom it works. From the perspective of people for whom English is a second language, the less well educated, women, young people and the marginalized the current way decisions are made is broken. Ask these people if a parliamentary / Roberts Rules of Order approach is good for them.

It is also broken because way too many decisions do not get implemented. The same old issues keep returning. Decisions are made and they don’t get put into effect. Decision-making that doesn’t result in action is broken!

Consensus approaches are resisted because people with influence claim that nothing is wrong. Check it out for yourself – are they right? If you want to encourage consensus discernment processes in your church then start pointing out where the current model is broken.

Fear of Losing Power

As the old saying goes: “winners are grinners”. Who would not be happy with a process that improves their chance of getting what they want? So, naturally, people resist consensus discernment when its introduction threatens their power.

When changes are made in a system the equilibrium is upset. A repositioning of power takes place. There will be resistance from those who fear losing power. Consensus – despite all its benefits – is not taken up because it has enemies.

If you want to encourage consensus do not be naive. Expect opposition and plan ahead for how you can make and support the case for change in a highly ethical way.

Obstacles to Consensus in the Culture

By far the biggest obstacle to the embrace of consensus discernment is culture. Basically, we have it in our head that some things are valuable / sensible / right and others are not.

So in Western culture, we find the following.

  • ideas that are expressed in clumsy ways or tentative terms are regarded as inferior to those presented in clear and assertive words
  • asking questions is seen as nitpicking and a diversion from the main discussion
  • complexity is avoided in favor of pithy statements and confident speeches
  • passion is alright but don’t show too many feelings
  • analysing and exploring implications is seen as going off on a tangent – never regarded as a good thing!
  • being productive / fast is valued whereas going slowly is frowned upon
  • questions are perceived as challenges – as though the questioner has done something wrong
  • presenting an alternative point of view is seen as being negative or a conflict that must be solved as quickly as possible
  • once a majority view is said to exist everyone else is expected to get on board or be seen as a spoiler

Culture is hard to overcome. If you want to bring change you will have to challenge the prevailing culture and affirm its alternatives. Think about some of the ways that you can do this in a meeting. What affirmations can you offer to the people who are devalued? What interventions can you make or statements of another way can you offer? Find and affirm values from the Christian faith that align with consensus approaches to discernment.

Conclusion

Change to consensus needs to happen! There are many good reasons why this is so – at least 16!  Consensus is good for individuals and groups and yet this is not universally recognised. Resistance comes from a lack of awareness of the problems, fear of losing power and the influence of culture.

Support the people who experience the pain of the current approach, educate others about its limitations, take the power issues seriously and teach and model an alternative church culture.

Uniting The Church – Is it Possible?

Partisanship in the church is not an obstacle to uniting the church. Closed mindedness to the other person and enmity is what is fatal if we are interested in uniting the church.

United Methodist Church (USA) – A Case Study

For many years the United Methodist Church (USA), hereafter the UMC, has been tearing itself apart over a range of issues. The most polarising issue at the moment is the one that it shares with many other churches – the place of LGBTIQ people in the life of the church. In some churches the issue is about whether LGBTIQ people can be members, or even Christians. For other churches it is about ordination or whether the church should conduct marriages or blessings of their love for one another.

In 2016 the UMC General Conference in Portland had the opportunity to talk together about this issue in a new, respectful and collaborative way. The meeting refused to use a new process. There were many reasons for this decision. However a major reason the new rule was not used was because people preferred to fight rather than co-operate. People wanted a fight so that they could defeat their opponents and vanquish them.  They cared less about each other than getting the votes. “To the victor the spoils” was the driving agenda of too many at that meeting.

Later in the meeting the General Conference established a Special Commission on the Way Forward. The aim of the Commission is to bring a plan to a special “called Conference” about how the church can overcome its incessant conflict, splits and the destructive effects on its mission. Tragically the Commission seems to have used the contemporary political approach of bringing the opposing parties together to cut a deal. Inevitably this approach will not succeed in uniting the church. Rather it will entrench the differences as side each jockeys for its agenda to succeed.

Uniting the church is not going to happen through encouraging partisanship and political game playing.  However, it is still not too late for the UMC to deploy an alternative method of respect and collaboration.

Uniting the church – a cynics view

There are many in the UMC, and other churches, who feel that the divide is too great and the enmity too strong to make respect and collaboration possible.

The argument runs

  • trust has been broken
  • with all the power in the opposing camps there is no middle ground
  • leaders get positions of power because they are hyper-partisan
  • bias in communications is so strong there is no room for a middle voice
  • with opposing world views clashing, it’s impossible to respect the other
  • every discussion is framed as a binary “yes” / “no” choice
  • don’t be so naive to think we can respect each other – you’ll get used

This cynicism is rife in many churches. So, in the face of divisions the idea of uniting Christians again seems like searching for the prospector’s lost reef of gold.

Let’s get realistic!

In the American context the churches face a particular challenge. Their political leaders have become more and more disrespectful of each other. The once encouraging ability to work “across the aisle” seems to have disappeared. Hyperbole, denigration and demonising of those with different views is standard discourse in politics and the media. Christians operating in this environment are at great risk of being infected with this poison. That’s a real problem and it needs to be taken seriously.

Fighting each other in the church is destructive of the church’s witness. People can see a political fight anywhere at any time. When they see Christians doing it then they will not hang around. When Christians tell me that it’s important to destroy their opponents so that the true Christian message can be preached I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. People are desperate to see love, experience community, and to receive respect. People are desperate to encounter in their experience of others the love, community and respect that God has shown humanity in Jesus Christ. The mission of God through the church is undermined when Christians prefer fighting to loving one another.

To fight each other in order to gain the spoils of victory will result in a pyrrhic victory. The cost of a victory delivered through lies, power plays and political deals costs the victor so much that it is really a loss. So often we forget that the way we reach a decision can be as important as the decision itself.

Finding a way past hyper-partisanship is the only hope for the church.  Uniting and peace are possible for the church. The alternative of division and discord is depressing and defeatist.

Being realistic includes:

  • resisting the power of local culture as it seeks to shape the character of Christian communities
  • grieving over the way that Christians fighting pushes people away from the Christian faith
  • recognising that the way we win can cause more harm than good
  • continuing on the hyper-partisan route is hopeless
  • Christians are a people of hope who have the promises of God about what our future can look like
  • we have the Holy Spirit with us so that we do not lose the way

What are the options

1.   Treat each other as sisters and brothers

See each other first as sisters and brothers in Christ. Avoid the temptation to demonise each other. Yes that is a real act of will. Actually it is an act of faith too! Do you have faith that God has made us family? If so what are you going to do about that when you disagree with someone?

2.   Talk to each other about your faith

In the last 20 years one of the great movements of the Holy Spirit in uniting Christians has been the Global Christian Forum. Pentecostal, Evangelical and Catholic Christians were not members of established national and international ecumenical bodies. In the case of Pentecostals and Evangelical Christians it was because they saw ecumenical Christians as theologically liberal and politically “progressive”.

Catholics and the other groups have had significant levels of enmity. Catholics considered that these churches were proselytising their members. Many Evangelicals and Pentecostals did not regard Catholics as Christians. Their leaders attacked each other and distrusted them.

In the face of these harsh realities uniting these groups seemed impossible. The Global Christian Forum was established to address these issues. It’s methodology is very simple – meet each other as fellow disciples of Jesus Christ. The structure of their fellowship is for people to share the stories of their faith – how they came to it, what nurtures it, what they hope for because of their faith.

3.   Learn from groups that are uniting their communities

I have just started reading the latest book by Mark Gerzon The Reunited States of America: how we can bridge the partisan divide. Mark is a mediator and an expert on political bridge building.

In the book he takes a realistic view of the obstacles to co-operation that exist in the American political context. He tells exciting stories about grass roots action for change. Mark Gerzon has biases. He prefers one candidate over another. One set of policies are viewed as better than others. However he has chosen not to be hyper-partisan in support for them. One key insight that makes this possible for him is that he has owned that he both liberal and conservative. Recognising that we are not monochrome, but are diverse in ourself, makes it possible to be comfortable with difference in others. The self talk we do as we explore our internal differences can be applied to the dialogue we have with others.

His four core strategies for uniting American citizens again across the partisan divide are:

  • reinventing citizenship
  • leading from across the borders that divide
  • championing the whole truth
  • serving the people

I highly commend The Reunited States of America: how we can bridge the partisan divide. You can access a copy here. If you purchase anything through this link within 24 hours we receive a small commission. This helps us to cover the costs of this website.

4.   Apply consensus building resources in your church

Don’t just think about the problems – work on the solutions in your context. There are many simple things that you can do to change the culture and practices of your church. Use the tools that have been proven to be effective in uniting Christians.

This website is devoted to making resources available to people who want to do consensus building in their church. If you are newlease browse and find more support. For a comprehensive resource we recommend our book The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together. You can purchase a copy  from Cokebury here or from Amazon.

Conclusion

There are many conflicts in the church. Many seem intractable. However relationships can be turned around – uniting divided people is possible. The good news is that God is committed to the goal of uniting us as brothers and sisters in Christ. We have the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us, faith to live out of, and many resources from inside and outside the church to resource us. Don’t give up!