 Task force members discuss how group will make decisions By John H. Adams The Layman Online Friday, October 17, 2003 DALLAS – The Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity came to Dallas to praise its "process" of discernment and decision-making – and maybe to bury it as well. There were mixed signals from the members of the task force committee, which has met for 2½ years without voting or making any decisions on the issues it was assigned, about how they will finally make some determination. They expressed the view that they had not settled on how they will finally make their decisions. So far, the process has followed a sometimes vague "discernment" model in which task force members have devoted most of their time to building up relationships among each other, studied selected papers on the issues, conducted Bible studies and held lengthy discussions. They have made some decisions – by consensus – on non-agenda items, including producing a video, posting their materials on a Web site and setting an agenda. The chief architect of the process is Vicky Curtiss, an Ames, Iowa, minister, who, during the task force's morning session Oct. 16, asked her colleagues to tell her what Presbyterians are saying about the process. In addition, she asked them to review a brief proposal she offered called "Modes of Discernment and Decision-Making." The reports from Presbyterians at presbyteries and other gatherings were pro and con. The response to her proposal was mostly con. Without any vote on "Additional Modes of Discernment," members of the task force clearly suggested that it should be revised. Curtiss emphasized that she had not specifically used the word "consensus" in commending the discernment process, but several task force members do use that language. Consensus decision-making is a model that is relatively new to governing bodies in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and many of the denomination's task force's and commissions. Consensus is being promoted by the staff of the stated clerk's office, including Associate Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons, who observed the United Church of Australia using consensus during its deliberations. Some of the comments from task force members about reports from the field included: Sarah Grace Sanderson-Doughty said she had heard from her presbytery that "some things you are doing are right and we need to do that, too." Barbara Wheeler said, "After news stories appeared about Gradye's report, I was approached by a minister in our presbytery who said, 'We use consensus in our congregations virtually to the exclusion of other approaches.' I was surprised at the report. I must say, I have prejudices about consensus. It's not true of this situation that liberals favor consensus. The largest church in our presbytery, where worship is evangelical in favor, uses consensus. It's very well known for its positive spirit." But Gary Demarest, co-moderator of the task force, said he had picked up fear in three presbyteries that the task force's process would allow "anything goes." And Mark Achtemeier said he had "encountered a little bit of skepticism around this notion of communal discernment. On the other side, we have had a significant migration toward consensus in the renewal group that I work with in the way they produce statements… where it became clear that majority decisions simply weren't going to work. My prejudices tend to track with Barbara's, that this works with smaller groups better than with larger groups." Barbara Everitt Bryant called the "discernment/consensus" model "very powerful, but you can't always reach consensus." John Wilkinson said he had heard a lot of positive response, but, "personally, I don't think I have a clear sense of what the model is." "A lot of folks said, 'I think it's great," Jack Haberer added. Mary Ellen Lawson expressed concern that "we're throwing Robert's [Rules of Parliamentary Procedure] out. Some stated clerks have written along this line, and they've been critical." Scott D. Anderson said he had heard of concern about "how much time we're going to spend on this consensus model." The consensus model has come under criticism from some of the media in the denomination since The Layman Online posted a story noting the denomination's own constitutional commitment to parliamentary procedure. Furthermore, The Layman Online said, the denomination's parliamentary manual describes consensus decisions as coercive to the minority. "I do think it's important to lift up some of the criticism in the press," Achtemeir said. "Consensus can be enormously coercive. In Robert you can file a minority view. When you get into trouble is when you try to force consensus when there is none." Haberer added, "If things come apart, I'll certainly be ready to file my minority report" – whatever decision-making process is used. Lawson tried to lighten up the discussion. "We've been criticized for not making decisions. I make a motion that we do eat lunch today." Quickly, she got a second and a call for the question. Curtiss' proposed "Modes of Discernment and Decision-Making" drew more comments. She had suggested:
Mike Loudon: "To say I'm against this seems like I'm saying I'm against motherhood and apple pie. But something doesn't sit right. Where is the centrality of Scripture?" Wheeler: "I agree with Mike. As I listened to the variety of things you reported back to us, I heard the assumption that process has saving power in itself and I don't think it does. We're real clear that God saves as God will. Processes are advice about the working out of our salvation. However we frame them, we've got to make clear that this is subsidiary advice." Frances Taylor Gench: "I share Mike's concern that Scripture be central." Coalter: "I have some questions about discernment broadly. Discernment means you don't come up with a decision. It's too rosy of a picture. A heavy dose of consensus is being tied to diversity. That's a reason for concern." But Jose Luis Torres-Milan prefers the process the task force has used. "I think it helps us build community. My experience is that Robert's has a tendency of splitting community." Lawson: "I am in favor of further exploration of where this is going. I think we can take part of Robert's." But she also expressed concern for rapid-fire decision-making that is common in some parliamentary bodies. "Sometimes, they just vote things up and down and winners go home happy and losers go home sad." Joan Kelley Merritt: "I'm wondering if it's just as possible to be just as coercive with a consensus system as it is with Roberts Rules." Jenny Stoner, co-moderator of the task force, called Curtiss' proposal "a wonderful and courageous first draft," but added, "How you use a particular method is probably more important than which method you use." Achtemeier: "I can't support it in its current form. The problem I have is its abstraction. It seems to me … the use of Robert's rules around certain contested situations have resulted in majority opinions being imposed upon minorities in passioned disagreement. I think that we can mount a Biblical and theological critique of what is wrong with that. I think that with this group, we've stumbled into a different way of doing business, if we could give it some context and some theological horsepower to tie into a critique of the specific problems that have brought us here … there would be some real possibilities to speak a prophetic and Biblical word to the church." Demarest: "I'm grateful that we have been led by the Spirit in this journey, this year. I'm finding this a very exciting, somewhat Abrahamic journey. But sometimes, out there, up front, I'm a little uncomfortable hearing people saying that I don't know where we're going. What kind of leadership is that?" He commended the discovery process. "There may be some things I don't know and there may be some things I'm wrong in and may need some correction. There may be some things I'm uncomfortable with … I want to continue the journey. I'd hate to see us abandon it and just become a parliamentarian model." Bryant: " I'm going to come down very much confirming what Vicky wrote here. The leading sentence, '… assist the church,' doesn't mean throw out the baby with the bath water." She suggested editorial changes that would refer to the authority of Scripture. Haberer said it's not time to promote the process. "When we're done, two years from now, if it continues to work, then I could enthusiastically say, 'Now, look at this process for the whole church.'" But Haberer objected strongly to the inclusion of compulsory language in Curtiss' text, specifically the word "should." He also criticized the inclusion in the rationale for "Modes of Discernment" a statement from the Report of the Special Commission to the 1925 General Assembly. That statement was proposed, but not adopted, as the resolution of a stormy debate over essential tenets between conservatives and liberals, said, "Supreme authority originating in the Divine Head of the Church is communicated to the members directly by the Holy Spirit … This is a fundamental principle of Presbyterianism." "That statement has a very divisive memory for a whole lot of folks," Haberer said. "The constituency I'm related to doesn't have fond memories of the of the 1925 session." "Obviously, this is just our toe in the water for a better dialogue," Curtiss said. "This was very, very preliminary." |
|
Respond to this article |
|
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|