[Oe List ...] Respectful Dialogue

[Herman Greene]

I didn't realize I was flattering myself. I didn't at the time experience
oppression. I was so young and confused I wouldn't have known how to have
named what sometimes happened. My present observations are general in nature
but based on my experience. 

-----Original Message-----
From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of E B
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:12 PM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Respectful Dialogue

Please, don't flatter yourself. Your voice was not the
only one crushed and allow me to add drowned in the
Order.


--- Herman Greene <hfgreene at mindspring.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at wedgeblade.net
>
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings,
and more!
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658 

_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net