Churches Must Find Alternatives To Voting--Can We Second That Motion?

Not sure we should add this to our list
of sacred texts.

Most of us assume the best way for  groups to make decisions is by majority vote, congregations included. So following Roberts Rule of Order, we have motions presented and seconded, and after brief discussions, take a vote. If over half of the group (or 2/3 in some cases) vote in favor, that settles it. It's the way democracy works. 

When an issue isn't particularly divisive this can be an efficient way to come to a decision. But when faced with something about which members have deep and differing feelings, it can result in polarization and division. Complex issues are first reduced to yea or nay options, then people have to align themselves on one side or the other, with one side coming out as the winner and the other the loser. In congregations, as in other communities of people, that can result in everyone losing.  

To avoid that, my friend David Brubaker, a consultant in organizational leadership and conflict mediation,  advises leaders to "Never take a vote about which you don't already know the outcome."

What this means is that until groups have taken time to really hear everyone's concerns and to arrive at some degree of consensus, they really don't have a satisfactory solution to a problem. Of course, if it's something people don't have deep feelings or convictions about, like whether to install tile or lay carpet in the fellowship hall, or whether to have fellowship meals once a month or once a quarter, a simple vote may be fine. And with most things you can always take up the issue again at a later time and have another vote.

But there are better ways to deal with deep seated differences. 

One of the principles of mediation and conflict resolution is to start by sharing common interests, rather than with proposed solutions. In other words, around the question of whether to recruit a salaried youth and young adult pastor a group could first find agreement on such interests as a) wanting to more effectively disciple their youth and young adults, b) wanting to be good stewards of their congregational resources, b) remaining united and faithful as a congregation regardless of the outcome, c) welcoming differing points of view as potentially helpful, and d) staying together and working and praying together until they arrive at a place of at least substantial agreement.

After coming together on common interests, instead of either deciding on options A or B, yes or no, a congregation might then take time to generate options C, D, E and F, and take some straw polls as they go along to sense which options seem to be gaining the greatest support.

One good way of gauging a group's feelings on an issue may be to have members indicate a degree of agreement with options presented, as in 0% agreement, 100% agreement, or any percentage in between. This may be especially important when it come to calling someone into a major leadership position in the church, or when reaffirming a pastor's continued service. 

One example David Brubaker suggests for some issues is the Quaker "fist to five" model, a method of testing consensus that can be used to indicate the gradient of support. (Where "five" means "full support" and "fist" means "no support," but with an additional four options in between the two.) At some point, he says, "we're going to have to deal with the reality that our current decision-making methods are inherently polarizing, as they force us into false binaries."

The fact is that most congregants, on most issues, have at least some ambivalent or mixed feelings on many issues, all of which deserve consideration, whereas an up or down vote on a matter pits one group, the nays, against another group, the yeas. And in the case of congregations determining whether to offer a pastor another term of service, for example, a no-confidence vote can all too often lead to their leaving and taking their supporters with them.

Of course, one might question whether God's people were ever meant to "hire" their pastors in the first place, but that's a subject for a future conversation.

Footnote: When it comes to filling other church positions, many churches have chosen alternatives to having nominating committees come up with slate of nominees to vote on to fill various church responsibilities. At Zion Mennonite, where I served as pastor for many years, we had members respond to an annual poll in which they indicated the areas in which they were personally most interested in serving, and then also had them name others they saw as qualified for various leadership positions. A Gifts Discernment Committee chosen by the congregation then matched the needs with available people and gifts.