Home

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Feminism

Viewpoints

Quote of the Month

Quarterly Newsletter

On-Line Discussion Forum

Letters to the Editor

Mission

The Persecuted Church

Ecumenical Connections

How You Can Help

The VOW Budget

Contact VOW
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The most recent edition of Horizons magazine (March/April 2004) contains an article entitled “I Consent.”  “I Consent” is a joyfully exultant hymn of praise offered in tribute to the latest alternative decision making fad – consensus.

According to its proponents, consensus decision making is a decision process that not only seeks the agreement of a majority of participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. 

Kelsey Rice, the article's author, asks “…in a world dominated by classism, racism and sexism, where voting power is concentrated in the hand of the few, does a majority vote really serve the majority’s needs? Does parliamentary procedure really allow room for the dissenting and minority voices?”  Her answer is an implied, “no.”

It is consensus decision making that “…incorporates some of feminism’s loftiest goals in its emphasis on cooperation rather than competition, the voices of all participants, and a non-hierchical group structure.  In this model, every person’s voice counts.”

According to Ms. Rice, in consensus decision making “the group examines a clearly defined problem and then proposes various ways of solving that problem.  Discussion builds on the contributions of others by clarifying, questioning, disagreeing with or expanding earlier statements.  Once all members have expressed their views, a facilitator defines the conclusion to which the group is moving. This ‘consensus check’ determines if everyone indeed agrees to this conclusion.  If everyone does not agree the group continues to discuss possibilities and alternatives.”

Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?  Just keep talking until agreement is found. 

Rice, a member of the National Network of Presbyterian College Women says, “NNPCW used the consensus model because it is simply the best reflection of the values the organization espouses.  At its heart, consensus is about listening and respecting the views of others … It teaches women how to resolve conflict in a constructive and creative, rather than combative, manner.  It hears marginalized groups and must respond to them.”

But, business and political analysts have pointed out a number of problems with consensus decision making. A too strict requirement of consensus may effectively give a small self interested minority group veto power over decisions. Decision by consensus may take an extremely long time to occur, and thus may be intolerable for urgent matters. In some cases, consensus decision making may encourage group think, a situation in which people modify their opinions to reflect what they believe others want them to think, leading to a situation in which a group makes a decision that none of the members individually think is wise. It can also lead to a few dominant individuals making all decisions. Finally, consensus decision making may fail in a situation where there simply is no agreement possible, and interests are irreconcilable.

However, for Presbyterians there are even greater problems.  According to The Historic Principles of Church Government (G-1.0400), “the will of the majority shall govern.”

Every year at the beginning of General Assembly, each commissioner is given a small pamphlet entitled, Parliamentary Procedures in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Written by Marianne Wolf, it reminds commissioners that “parliamentary law is common sense and courtesy developed over many centuries of practice; it is the original model for conflict resolution and is still a working model, when used correctly; it is not law, but rather, a body of conventions and customs used to aid decision making in deliberative assemblies; when properly used it is designed to provide accuracy, efficiency, impartiality, objectivity, and uniformity.”

Moreover, in Parliamentary Procedures, Ms. Wolf has something specific to say about consensus as a decision making process. She writes:

“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.” 

 “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. (emphasis added)

Wolfe, the stated clerk of Pittsburgh Presbytery for many years, has served on nine Assembly committees and task forces.

“The clerk is the fulcrum on which ardor and order rest — where Ezekiel’s dry bones and the breath of the Spirit meet,” she said in an interview with The Presbyterian News Service. She spoke of the church as a stained-glass window, saying: “Each of us becomes a facet of the window when we meet Jesus Christ. When we put all of the facets together, we come the closest to having God’s truth for us. Our polity is the leading that holds the glass together.” 

Her advice on polity to PC(USA) clerks: “Know it, teach it, act on it.”