PCUSA bodies adopt consensus model that denomination opposes

PCUSA bodies adopt consensus model that denomination opposes By John H. Adams *The Layman Online* Thursday, October 2, 2003 A decision process called "consensus," which runs at cross purposes with the denomination's parliamentary policy, is now being promoted and utilized by some of the denomination's decision-making bodies in the Presbyterian Church (USA). It is a process, according to the PCUSA's official parliamentary manual, that should never [the manual's emphasis] be used except in "the most routine of parliamentary procedures." The manual denounces consensus decision-making, describing it as "manipulative and overpowering to the rights of the minority." Nonetheless, the PCUSA's Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity has used consensus decision-making for two years without making a single motion or taking a single vote. And its agenda is anything but routine. The 213th General Assembly decreed that the task force provide the denomination discernment on four steamy issues: Christology, the authority and interpretation of Scripture, the unending debate over whether to ordain practicing homosexuals and how decision-making power is divvied up in the PCUSA. In September, an even more powerful decision-making body – the General Assembly Council – decided to use consensus to determine how to set its priorities for spending and staff on its Mission Work Plan. Likewise, the issues under that banner are not routine. They entail, for instance, how much money and manpower the PCUSA invests in, say, evangelism vs. justice issues, such as boycotting Taco Bell. In the case of the General Assembly Council, the outline for the consensus model was provided by a member of the denomination's staff – Gradye Parsons, who has served as parliamentarian of the General Assembly when Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick was busy with other matters. Parsons picked up his impressions of the consensus model during a recent trip to Australia, where he observed the Uniting Church of Australia use that manner of decision-making during its General Assembly. In a column written for the Office of the General Assembly's "Perspectives," Parsons gives the consensus model a laudatory review, although he acknowledges that it's a big departure from the denomination's traditional parliamentary model under the aegis of Roberts Rules of Order. "I have been involved in various capacities at our General Assembly as a parliamentarian," Parsons said in "Perspectives." "I teach parliamentary procedure to new governing body clerks and moderators. Some people think I sleep with RONR under my pillow. So, to say the least, I was very curious about the UCA's use of consensus. I have been taught by Marianne Wolfe that consensus is a manipulative system that can use group pressure to dominate the minority. I would need to see with my own eyes how Presbyterians could function in a different way." Wolfe is an expert parliamentarian and the author of a pamphlet titled "Parliamentary Procedures in the Presbyterian Church (USA)," which is the denomination's official guide. It is distributed to stated clerks, elders and ministers of all governing bodies in the PCUSA. Wolfe strongly defends the traditional Presbyterian parliamentary procedure and denounces – with strong language – resorting to consensus models. Here's how she states the case in consecutive paragraphs on pages 4 and 5 of "Parliamentary Procedures in the Presbyterian Church (USA):" The Will of the Majority Shall Prevail (G-1.0400) 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. 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 as listed above 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." It was the staff of the PCUSA that coaxed the General Assembly Council into a consensus format for deciding issues. The consensus model focuses on having a running commentary until everyone agrees – whether because of weariness or peer pressure. Utilizing small groups to develop consensus abstracts, its puts the emphasis on "information" and interpersonal relationships, striving toward a goal of "can't we all get along together." In the case of the Theological Task Force, the process is painstakingly slow; the task force has met for two years without taking a stand on any of the four issues on its agenda. The General Assembly Council has adopted a staff recommendation to use the same model as the Uniting Church in Australia. First, small groups draft an abstract on an issue and then it's debated on the floor of a plenary session with less formality than the normal procedure of motions, amendments, perfecting motions, votes, etc. As the issue moves along, the council members express their view by holding up orange cards if they agree with a speaker or blue cards if they disagree. When all the cards are orange or blue, it's a done deal. There'll be no minority report, no move for reconsideration. At the conclusion of the staff's recommendation that the General Assembly Council adopted the consensus model, there was this comment: "Will it work? Who knows? Is it worth a try? Yes, with prayer and an open spirit."


Respond to this article







Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links