Friday, August 8, 2008

Guidelines for Communal Discernment: A Critique


During General Assembly two of the committees used a guide for what is often thought of as consensus decision making . The one guide offered was written by Victoria G. Curtiss and was entitled Guidelines for Communal Discernment. Before GA I wrote a paper on the Guidelines which was used by a few people in a shorter form.

After reading a posting on Presbyweb, "Discernment as committee assignment: GA groups struggle to try it out" by Leslie Scanlon at the Presbyterian Outlook, I am posting the paper on my web site, Naming the Grace.

The paper, "Guidelines for Communal Discernment: A Critique" begins:

"Reading the Guidelines for Communal Discernment, a resource for the 218 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), I am reminded of C.S. Lewis's Narnia book, The Silver Chair. In that story Prince Rilian, Jill, Scrubb and the Marsh-Wiggle, Puddleglum, face the witch-queen of the Underland.

The Scene is set. With a bit of magic powder, the queen provides a sweet and drowsy smell from the fire. She takes “a musical instrument rather like a mandolin,” and begins to “play with her fingers-a steady, monotonous thrumming,” that will become unnoticeable after awhile. The queen uses 'a soothing voice,” as though she is “humoring a child…'

Only the Puddleglum can change the situation by stepping on the fire so the whole room will be filled with the smell of burnt Marsh-wiggle. It's hard to manipulate the outcome of a situation with burnt Marsh-wiggle waking everyone up, but in the real world of Presbyterian decision making understanding the difference between “communal discernment” and parliamentary procedures will help. So will knowledge of how spirituality can be used to manipulate people.

The booklet, Guidelines for Communal Discernment, written by Victoria G. Curtiss, is meant as a guide to be used with or instead of the normal parliamentary procedures in some General Assembly committees as well as other official meetings of the PCUSA. Communal discernment in its most basic and simplified form consists of discussion about and discernment of an issue until a particular group arrives at a decision. "

Another part of my article:

Definitions of communal discernment and consensus as manipulation: Under the sub-title, “What is Communal Discernment?,” Curtiss gives many definitions and many of them, in this section, could also be applied to parliamentary procedures. For instance, she writes, “Communal discernment engages a group of people to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. It involves prayer, a humble surrendering of control, reflection on Scripture, and listening carefully to one another as together we seek to hear God's voice.”

Yet, in the gathered Body of Christ any kind of action involving decision making, when not used manipulatively, could possess these same qualities. A presbytery that worships before addressing motions and then offers time through parliamentary procedures for members to speak to a motion is also encouraging them to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. Surrendering control, reflecting on Scripture and listening carefully to one another is always a matter of the individual's attitude toward Christ and other Christians and has nothing to do with the procedure used.

Curtiss also writes, “Discernment seeks more than group agreement. The goal is to recognize when `it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us' (Acts 15:28).” But this is also a goal of parliamentary procedure. The difference here between the two is that the author suggests some rather subjective ways of knowing if a decision is the will of the Holy Spirit. Such subjective feelings and emotions as “God's presence settling over the group in silence,” and a “joyous convergence of direction that brings a sense of peace and rightness,” are her indicators for a final decision.

On the other hand, the use of parliamentary procedures offers a concrete vote. This is not to say that the vote is always the will of the Lord, but at least it is outside the bounds of spiritual manipulation. And it is important to note, as Marianne L. Wolfe, author of the booklet, Parliamentary Procedures in the Presbyterian Church (USA) states:

'Majority rule is not a mystical or arbitrary concept. It is highly pragmatic, reflecting the reality that the whole church, as it acts, can do only that which most of the church is willing to do. Hence, the majority vote is a function of unity. Decisions taken by majority vote do not reflect “truth” but, rather, the search for truth.' (4-5)

Wolfe, goes on to explain that consensus decision making “at its worst” is “manipulative and overpowering to the rights of the minority because it compels the minority to `break the unity of the body' in order to disagree.”

To read the whole article go here.

2 comments:

robert austell said...

Viola, I was in committee 16, which used communal discernment (and was led by Vicky Curtiss). There was definitely plenty of burnt marsh-wiggle in our committee and we ground to a halt with several folks walking out and not returning.

I was able to send what I hope was a constructive critique to the leadership - the biggest issues seemed to be lack of trust. I could see such a process working well on something like a Session retreat, where there was a high trust level and clear leadership. But 70 commissioners and no clear agenda or leadership was a mess.

Viola Larson said...

Robert,
Thanks for sharing. I was hoping to hear from someone involved and in particular you because I value your integrity.
I agree that it might work well in a Session retreat where there is trust.
However, --I don’t know if you read the whole paper on my site—Curtiss’ take on how the Holy Spirit works would have left me in a non-trust position before I had even begun.