[Oe List ...] Respectful Dialogue

Sun Oct 14 10:16:37 EDT 2007

As I understand it, consensus was developed with the idea that everyone's
voice could be heard and even one person could stop a decision from being
made. As practiced in the order when I was there, that poor dissenting voice
was drowned out by "Don't block the consensus." 

Tom Hayden once commented on his experience of consensus in the civil rights
days. What he found was that only the charismatic leaders had the power to
name the consensus. Everyone waited until one of the charismatic leaders
spoke and then people followed and the dissenters were crushed. Not all of
you experienced it this way in the Oder, but I did. No one really wanted to
listen to dissenting views and those that followed convention had the most
power to name the "consensus." 

At least in a vote, the minority's objection goes on record. Yet, as John
Montgomery indicates those in the majority can rule and believe that a
plurality of votes is a mandate from Heaven. In the Southern Baptist Church
conservative churches packed the house and stole a denomination, so yes the
majority can tyrannize a minority in democracy. Further in the present
administration we have seen a disregard of the minority when the President's
party exercised majority power in Cogress (even now with the ability to
filibuster).

The thing is that bodies do have to make decisions and there are
disagreements. It doesn't follow that if people reason together they will
eventually come to a reasoned consensus. This is theoretically possible in
like-minded groups, but as indicated in my Order experience what happens is
that a ruling conventionalism or charismatic leader dominates. I have heard
that Quakers make this work but by having unbelievably long meetings
sometimes. Is it really the goal of decision-making that everyone come to
agreement?

I appreciated Nancy's practical example in a group where some decision had
to be made. There are many approaches and the goal after all is free
expression and exchange of ideas with a goal of making the best decision.
Different methods will work in different situations.

As I indicated in my earlier e-mail, on a practical level most decisions in
small bodies are made by consensus. There are times, however, when there are
genuine disagreements . . . like whether or not to build the new sanctuary .
. . for which there may be no genuinely consensual right answer. Without
thinking this through further at this time, I think then democracy is good
because it allows a decision to be made without papering over the
disagreement. Democracy is not good, however when there is not a process
that allows to speak, and equally or more important a process that enables
people to listen in genuine dialogue. This is what we all strive for.

I really cannot imagine how "consensus is a step forward for the World
Council of Churches. Have these people really reached consensus on such
issues as gay right? Are these people really content to let one single
delegate block a decision, or will they rise up and say "Don't block the
consensus!"

Herman

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of George Holcombe
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 10:32 AM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Respectful Dialogue

May I ask for a little more clarity and perhaps some education for myself
from those commenting on consensus as a decisional method? What I heard was
that consensus could be used by the majority to crush the minority, and that
a more evolved process goes beyond consensus method. I would like to know
what decision method can not be misused, and when we talk about processes
that goes beyond setting around a table and explaining, if experimenting is
somehow not part of achieving consensus. Just what would you call it?

My experience has been that there are no processes that cannot be misused,
but some seemed rigged for the majority (Roberts Rules, simple votes),
though even there some genuine decisions arise. Consensus seems more aimed
toward the future, and can allow for a multiplicity of views. I have found
no better way to get things on "top of the table." The hardest thing for any
organization to do is to make a "real" decision. I've been impressed with
both the corporate and non-profit world I've had opportunity to experience
have leaned toward some form of consensus making, some more complex than
another.

George Holcombe

14900 Yellowleaf Tr.

Austin, TX 78728

Home: 512/252-2756

Mobile 512/294-5952

geowanda at earthlink.net

On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Nancy Lanphear wrote:

Dear Friends, 

As we were forming our community of Songaia, we decided that we would use
consensus for decision making. However, we have the gift of having a couple
of folks who hold us to hearing and honoring each individual voice in the
process and the concern that Herman voiced is acknowledged. Of course, this
sometimes works better than others, but we put energy into making it work.
Nearly 8 years later, we have another way of processing - it is called a
decision board. An individual or committee can write a proposal, send it out
by email and post it on the decision board. The name of each community
member is listed on the proposal followed by 3 columns: 1) I agree, 2) I
need more discussion, 3) I will help fund the project. If there are folks (1
or more) who need more discussion, we set a time and gather folks to work it
through. Folks who want to see the project happen might help to fund it or
we request money from our abundant fund to carry out the project. There are
times when folks will stand aside but not block the decision but usually we
work at the proposal so that people are ready to go with it. There continue
to be decisions that we need to talk through as a whole group - and so we
do. 

Let me give a fun example: Early on in our life together, one family wanted
to have chickens. The chickens would provide us with eggs, an education
about where our eggs and chicken meat came from (not the supermarket), and
how it gets to our table (killing), and fertilizer for the garden. Several
folks in the community were quite concerned about the noise (roosters), some
did not want the smell around the community. No one really wanted the
chicken coop in their "back yard. About 2 years ago, 3 folks stepped forward
with a proposal - no roosters and the coop (a chicken tractor*) would be
placed in the garden (not really in anyone's back yard). Well - there was
still a concern about the original two issues plus a third big issue - AVIAN
FLU! 

Fred gathered folks together for conversations and explained how the noise
and smell were being dealt with - folks seemed to understand at this point.
The avian flu was a tough one- but it was decided that if avian flu showed
up in the USA, we would get rid of the chickens. Finally we had consensus
given the explanations of how the project would be handled AND a hearty YES
from the 11 children in the community. 

The saga continues - we all love the chickens, the eggs AND the one rooster
who came with the lot of chicks (sometimes telling their sex at birth is
difficult) in the beginning. He crows at any time of day or night but he
helps structure the lives of the hens in a rather creative way!

*Our chicken tractor is quite a sight. The house (8 ft X 3 ft) is made of
green plastic siding with a roost and 3 nests inside. It can be moved each
week since it is built on 2 riding mower wheels and has a handle on the back
side. There are two portable chicken runs, one on each end of the coop which
detach for moving purposes. Food and water are piped into the coop. The
coop/runs are designed to fit into our garden beds. These birds have become
part of our recycling program here at Songaia, they eat nearly all of our
scraps from the kitchen.

(In case you would like to have such a feature (chicken coop and run) in
your yard, please send $1.00 to Fred.) 

Yours in community and in fun, 

Nancy

On Oct 12, 2007, at 5:38 AM, Herman Greene wrote:

Most small groups effectively do work by consensus. Yet, consensus is
something I cannot back as a policy for virtually any group. It too easily
becomes a form of tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Herman

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of George Holcombe
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:28 AM
To: ICA LIST SERVE; Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Respectful Dialogue

A memory flashes back out of these last few days of emails.

We used to say:

1. Humor is better than seriousness.

2. Yes before no

3. Phariseeism more dangerous than libertinism

It's interesting that the World Council of Churches has now introduced
consensus making as its form of decision making and that the United
Methodist Church in its reorganization as a global church is looking at
adapting that too at the next General Conference.

Wouldn't it be a pity if we forgot what we pushed into history along with
others, and if what defined us is what we choose to remember about our past
and what offends us about others.

Could it be we are being challenged to learn how to use email as a
significant way to push us into the future?

George Holcombe

14900 Yellowleaf Tr.

Austin, TX 78728

Home: 512/252-2756

Mobile 512/294-5952

geowanda at earthlink.net

_______________________________________________

OE mailing list

OE at wedgeblade.net

http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net

_______________________________________________

OE mailing list

OE at wedgeblade.net

http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20071014/85cc816e/attachment-0001.html 