- August 14, 2003

Viewpoint
August 14, 2003

Home

About us

Monitored Pages

Other Presbylinks

Bookstore

Classified Ads

Email us

Consensus decision-making
By Robert D. Dooling

“A consensus-oriented group cannot, by definition, be committed to the pursuit of genuine peace, genuine unity or genuine purity.”

In yesterday morning's newspaper, there was a picture of a young Venezuelan girl holding a handwritten, cardboard poster that read, "Sin justicia no hay paz" - without justice there is no peace. Most of us, of course, would agree with her.

I thought of that picture later in the day when I read the most recent PCUSA News release entitled, "All in favor" by John Filiatreau. In it he writes:

"Members of the Theological Task Force are questioning whether the characteristically Presbyterian way of doing business - by way of passionate advocacy, parliamentary procedure, Robert's Rules of Order and up-or-down votes - is the best way to go forward.

One of the first decisions the 20 members of the task force made, more than two years ago - by consensus - was to make all their decisions by consensus.

To this day they have not taken a single vote."

Filiatreau's report brought the little girl and her placard to mind because I am convinced that the following statements are analogous to her "sin justicia no hay paz" - "without genuine unity there can be neither peace nor purity," "without genuine purity there can be neither peace nor unity," and " without genuine peace there can be neither purity nor unity."

But, good Presbyterian that I am, I can't help wondering if authentic peace, unity or purity can be discovered at the end of the process called "consensus."

More to the point, I am reminded of a pamphlet that is distributed annually to each and every GA Commissioner - along with stern warnings by the Stated Clerk and his staff to heed its wisdom. Written by GA parliamentarian, Marianne Wolfe, the booklet is entitled, Parliamentary Procedures in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). In it, Ms. Wolfe states:

"Majority rule is not a mystical or arbitrary concept. It is highly pragmatic, reflecting the reality that the whole church, as it acts, can do only that which most of the church is willing to do. Hence, the majority vote is a function of unity (emphasis mine). Decisions taken by majority vote do not reflect 'truth' but, rather, the search for 'truth.' Majority rule in this understanding need not be thought of as a 'win/lose' situation.

Recent moves to adopt consensus decision-making are antithetical to this principle and also to the basic rights of the individual… and should never be used except in the most routine of parliamentary transactions. At its worst, consensus decision-making is manipulative and overpowering to the rights of the minority because it compels the minority to 'break the unity of the body' in order to disagree. Most church members will choose to suppress their disagreement rather than risk this, and, if forced into this dilemma very often, will begin to harbor resentment toward the body. This latter is far more destructive to unity than open disagreement and the freedom of the right to disagree."

"… consensus decision-making is manipulative and overpowering to the rights of the minority because it compels the minority to 'break the unity of the body' in order to disagree." These are words that the Task Force needs carefully to think about.

Consensus as a decision-making process may foster civil, polite and non-threatening conversations. It may even produce a kind of "unity" in which members of the group genuinely learn to like, respect and care about one another. And this is not to be gainsaid – if the principal goal of the group is merely to get along.

On the other hand, however, we must also recognize that the glue that holds a consensus-oriented group together is its commitment to consensus itself. Such a group cannot, by definition, be committed to the pursuit of genuine peace, genuine unity or genuine purity - because an unimpaired pursuit of these goals will inevitably require that someone either submit or withdraw.

For consensus to work, the group must be willing to settle for the least common denominator, and in the process it will unavoidably be required to immolate anything and everything else on the altar to the idol known as harmony.

Rev. Robert D. Dooling is pastor of Mountain View United Presbyterian, in Loveland, Colorado and a trustee of the Presbyterian Forum.

Note: Under the heading Viewpoint we publish unsolicited essays and letters that we believe deserve to be highlighted. To post or not to post a Viewpoint article, that is a question for the editor only. Viewpoint articles often do not express the opinion of Presbyweb.