Toolbox For Faith

Almost instinctively, St. Michael tends to make decisions by consensus. The desire for consensus may reflect lessons which were learned by the congregation during a previous time of conflict or it may simply reflect my leadership style, but regardless of why it is happening, consensus is our current form of decision making. The leadership of the congregation has worked to be transparent and has built a strong level of trust. We work hard to share information broadly and to solicit a variety of opinions in order to create a helpful way forward. As Martin B. Copenhaver noted about his congregation an article entitled, “Who Is Robert, Anyway?” in Congregations, Fall 2007, “votes may be a part of the process, but they are not the end toward which the entire process proceeds. Instead, voting is a way of testing consensus, of asking, ‘Do we sense that we discerned the mind of Christ on this matter?”

Given the nature of our culture, congregations often follow a “majority rules” approach to governance. The ones with the most votes win, but as I told a friend of mine recently, just because something is legal, doesn’t mean that it is right or the best way to handle a situation. In my experience, there is nothing to be gained and a great deal to be lost in a congregation by creating win/lose votes on an issue. When we are at our best as a people of God, we, as Copenhaver suggests, “seek together to discern what Christ would have us do.” Trying to discern what Christ would have us do and working to building consensus isn’t always the neatest or most expedient approach to decision making, but I find it to a helpful way to build a healthy leadership team and congregation.

If you are an Alban member, you can read the entire Copenhaver article here: http://www.alban.org/conversation.aspx?id=5026.