Moving forward together

Jun 25, 2019 by

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Have you ever made a decision when you were for the idea and the other person was against it? Or, been on a board when a vote went five in favor and four against? It’s not fun to move ahead that way. Which of us, if we think of relationships rather than about winning, is OK with “majority rules” decision making? I hope not many.

Perhaps there is a better way.

I joined Steve Berg and David Wiebe as representatives of the Canadian Mennonite Brethren family at the April 2018 Mennonite World Conference General Council meetings in Kenya. There, we encountered another way to make decisions.

Previously, I was not sure how to do consensus decision making with a board, a congregation or a delegation.

For MWC, there are three steps.

First, the information stage, presents background information, the range of possible perspectives and a course of action. Next, delegates ask questions for additional information and deliberate as delegates discuss differing opinions.

As the conversation moves forward, the facilitator can ask delegates to show their level of agreement by raising one of three cards. Orange represents full agreement. Yellow indicates some agreement with some hesitation. Blue shows disagreement or opposition.

The chair can call for raised cards to check whether the body is nearing consensus when making summary statements or when minor modifications are offered. If needed, the chair encourages more discussion.

The third step is the decision stage. But it isn’t a quick yea or nay vote. Delegates can speak to the benefits or disadvantages.

In my experience at MWC, those who had not raised orange cards were afforded opportunities to share lingering concerns, objections or additional perspectives. This gave assurances that each person and their view was important, and that the decision was being made by the group.

When the chair believes a consensus has been reached, he or she asks for a show of cards. If the colors are all affirmative, consensus can be declared, and the proposal is accepted.

If consensus is not reached, further discussion can continue to address concerns or questions. More questions can determine the level of support, including “Who doesn’t support the proposal as their first option, but is prepared to accept it?” and “Who is not prepared to accept the proposal?”

Those who oppose the proposal are invited to share their misgivings. If consensus still cannot be reached, they are asked if they feel they have been heard. The larger body is asked if they feel those who dissent have heard the other side.

As I reflect on my time in these meetings, it was these acts of ensuring mutual listening and understanding that allowed us to move ahead as a group, instead of being divided into factions.

In this way, a group can reach agreement even without unanimity.

Or, the group may postpone the final outcome to the next meeting.

Or, if a decision must be made at once, a conventional vote decided by formal majority can be taken.

We likely can’t redo votes of the past. But as we face decisions, let’s consider this model to help maintain the unity of the Spirit among us. It will help us learn from each other and even deepen our relationships. We’ll find that it feels good to move forward together!

Laurence Hiebert is pastor at Mountainview Grace Church in Calgary, Alta., part of the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. This article first appeared in MB Herald.

Comments Policy

Mennonite World Review invites readers’ comments on articles. To promote constructive dialogue, editors select the comments that appear, just as we do with letters to the editor in print. These decisions are final. Writers must sign their first and last names; anonymous comments are not accepted. Comments do not appear until approved and are posted during business hours. Comments may be reproduced in print, and may be edited if selected for print.