Debate? Deliberation? Discussion? Discernment?

Although this entry concerns my Presbyterian denomination, I urge all of you to read this.  It signals some trends in our society which should be of great concern to thinking men and women, regardless of religious affiliation.  At the October 10 meeting of the Presbytery of South Alabama, the body voted to make a radical change in the way the presbytery will be conducting its business--or not--during its meetings from October, 2007, through the spring meeting of 2008.  During those meetings, the presbytery will largely dispense with committee reports, overtures and resolutions and will only conduct mandated Constitutional business.  For the rest of the time,   the presbytery adopted a "presbytery Sabbath," for those meetings--a format in which most of the meeting time will be taken up with discernment and prayer.  The recommendation is apparently an attempt to create an atmosphere similar to that of the General Assembly's recent Joint Task Force on the Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church.  No clear-cut issue was given as the motivating factor for this radical change in presbytery procedure.  I am aware that other governing bodies within the denomination are experimenting with similar procedures.

 

I have some practical concerns about the procedure.  An overnight stay will be necessary, since these are to be two-day meetings.  No details of the procedure have been worked out yet.  We don't know where the meetings will be or how the expenses for ministers and elders will be met.  Presumably, ministers and elders will be reimbursed by their churches, as is customary now; but the expenses will be greater.  Related to that is the fact that the presbytery has already been concerned about the lack of participation by ruling elders, even for regular meetings.  How do they expect to get more ruling elders involved for a two-day meeting?

 

My strong opposition to the idea, however, is based on far greater concerns--issues that are based on principle and a philosophical approach.   We seem to be entering a time in the church--and possibly in society at large--that devalues debate, deliberation, and discussion.  We are afraid to take responsibility for decisions, and so we seek consensus.  In the church, we seem to think that some kind of "discernment" process, stemming from group analysis, is more likely to produce valid actions and decisions, and show us God's will,  than a set of proposals rationally conceived and thoroughly discussed.  Debate is now something to be feared.  We are moving away from thought and more towards feelings, subjective discernment--based, presumably, on the idea that everybody will "feel better" about the results.

 

One of the interesting comments made during the discussion of this proposal was that people wanted an atmosphere where they could "hub someone in public, and not be embarrassed."  (I can assure you that if I decide to hug someone in public, and they are willing to be hugged, I won't be embarrassed.)

 

There are certainly times when all of us who are believers need to pause and reflect during a busy life to discern the will of God as best we can do so.  We reach many "forks in the road," and it is not always easy to know which path to take.  When I seek to discern the will of God about a difficult decision or a matter of principle, I do so through prayer and meditation, Scripture reading, and serious thought as I consider a number of factors.  I may do most of this individually.  If it is a personal matter, I will discuss it with my wife.  In any case, I may choose to consult with close friends, people I respect, or people who know and love me and care deeply about my life.  I am least likely to want to spend time with a group who are largely strangers to me and who may or may not even have much in common with my understanding of the Christian faith! In any case, the vigorous debate and intellectual stimulation which come from wrestling with issues while meeting with fellow ministers and ruling elders is hardly a hindrance to the process of discernment and serious thought!  If we use our best intellectual energy and engage in that kind of conversation in which "iron sharpens iron," are we not more likely to come to hard-fought decisions that will be of substance than if we merely try to throw every idea in a collective soup, regardless of its Scriptural merit or factual credibility?    blank      

 

To try to create an atmosphere similar to that of the Joint Task Force is artificial and unlikely to be successful.  The participants of the PUP Task Force were together for about four years and held many meetings.  The people at presbytery are likely to change over the year and are, in any event, doing something that they are required to do, not something they were appointed to undertake under very special circumstances well in advance.

 

Margaret Thatcher once said that "consensus is the negation of leadership."  Robert's Rules of Order were popularized largely because those involved in deliberations realized the failure of the consensus method.  Consensus, or the discernment process envisioned by PC(USA) idealists, serves to intimidate the minority, encouraging them to go along with things they do not approve, since there are no real Parliamentary safeguards to guarantee their right of official dissent.  It is true that in the Parliamentary model, those who are not as informed on the issues or who feel less certain of the procedure, may sometimes choose to remain silent.  The solution to this, of course, is not to "dumb down" the system, but to encourage officer training and better awareness of the issues.  What we have chosen to do instead is sacrifice reasonable cognitive thought for vague ponderings and objective decisions with accountability attached to them for subjective discernment which will piously and self-righteously claim to "bring people together" when, in reality it will say very little.  Boldness does not usually result from consensus.

 

I am just as eager to discern the will of God--for myself, a congregation, a denomination, or a nation--as anybody; but that discernment cannot be done by seeking to mix ingredients from the general pool of human thought with the hope of coming out with a successful recipe.  I still prefer order to a kind of sanctified chaos and rational deliberation over

fuzzy spiritualizing.