An important test of God’s leading is spiritual unity, a sense of peace after a prayerful and thorough discussion of a decision.
—David Goetz
In Texas they call it “kickin’ acorns”—when everybody adjourns to the church parking lot after the board meeting to release their frustrations about the previous two hours.
“That’s precisely what’s wrong with the way many church boards are run,” says Danny Morris, director of developing ministries for the United Methodist Church’s Upper Room in Nashville, Tennessee. “Most church boards employ Robert’s Rules of Order to make decisions, which often creates animosity among board members.
“RRO is an adversarial system that creates winners and losers,” Morris says. “And when you deal in an adversarial way, you end up with adversaries.”
But not only does RRO throw up walls between people, it’s often irrelevant. The making and seconding of motions is often done in a perfunctory manner, not reflecting the deeper mood of the board.
One church board had voted to start a second Sunday morning service. Six months later, the board wrestled with hiring an additional music person to help with worship. Finances were tight. After some discussion, somebody piped up, “I move to drop the second service altogether,” and the motion passed by over 60 percent. Not one person questioned it.
As the meeting wore on, one of the board members said, “I feel uncomfortable about what we’ve just done. I think we should pray before we just eliminate the second service.” The rest of the board nodded, and so the service was reinstated until further review.
So much for the vote. Isn’t there a better way to “do church”?
God’s fingerprint
The answer to the problems of RRO isn’t to chuck it. RRO is effective for much of what church boards do—approving minutes and reports, for example. It’s quick, clean, and efficient.
What RRO can’t do, however, is help explore the deeper issues of church life, such as determining a church’s vision. Such issues are the ones over which emotions in God’s people run hot and deep. These essential issues have this question at their core: What is God’s will for our church?
For these issues that matter, God’s will can be determined only through a higher level of decision making—spiritual discernment. In short, spiritual discernment is listening for God’s will. It’s done through consensus, which simply means that in a church board or committee, an important test of God’s leading is spiritual unity, a sense of peace after a prayerful and thorough discussion of a decision. (No longer do board members have to adjourn to the parking lot to practice for the punt, pass, and kick competition.)
For more than 300 years, the Quakers have employed this model of decision making. They assume the best of those attending their business meetings: each person genuinely desires the best solution. They also assume that groups, searching together, can reach a better decision than can one person alone.
Consensus doesn’t mean that before a decision can be made every board member has to support every point of a proposal. The axiom that true consensus will never occur until a few funerals are conducted is probably still true. But consensus means that despite disagreement, when the group looks at the decision as a whole, they can see God’s fingerprint.
“The image we have to get out of our mind,” says Morris, “is that consensus means we pastors have whipped everybody into shape. Pastors listening for the Spirit in their congregations take huge risks. Listening creates uncertainty and a new kind of vulnerability between pastor and people, and between people and people.”
A change to this model of decision making must be guided by a powerful vision of pastoring a church where it is normal for the Holy Spirit to reveal God’s will to God’s people.
Good or bad vibes?
In many ways, church meetings governed by spiritual discernment look similar to those run by RRO. But there is a qualitative difference, which rests on the shoulders of the person leading the meeting—the chairperson.
Quakers call this person the “clerk,” the person whose job it is to interpret the spirit of the meeting, moving along the agenda while not controlling or pushing it, someone who guides, not steers, the meeting.
His or her task is nothing more than good old-fashioned reflective listening. An item is presented for discussion, and at various intervals, the chairperson says, “I’m sensing that this is the direction we’re heading,” or, “What I’m hearing the group saying is …”
What the chairperson (or “spiritual guide”) is trying to determine is a collective thumbs up or thumbs down on the item for discussion. Is there a pervasive feeling of joy, or feelings of doubt, reservation, fear? Under the RRO system, the chair would just call for a vote after the discussion.
Frances Smith chairs the board at Long’s Chapel United Methodist Church. Her forty-year history in the church contributes to her effectiveness as the board’s spiritual guide. She knows well the idiosyncrasies of each board member.
“A good spiritual guide,” says Frances, “knows the backgrounds of the other board members. If a board member whom I don’t know well begins creating problems on the board, I make it my business to find out more about him or her.”
Informal knowledge of board members is essential, because the guide must make everyone feel heard, prevent any one person from dominating, and draw out those who are shy.
Douglas Steere, a Quaker, explained: “[A] good clerk is a person who refuses to be hurried and can weary out [i.e., endure] dissension borne of the confidence that there is a way through, although the group may have to return again and again to the issue before clearness comes and a proper decision is reached.”
Of course, the spiritual guide must be savvy enough to know that when ol’ John Knecht squashes for the umpteenth time a proposal to give more to missions, that John will always be John. But that’s just the point of consensus: ol’ John is valued by the board; factions are not permitted to power past him by a simple majority. Besides, there is probably a kernel of truth in his concern, and this is precisely the point of spiritual discernment: to get on the table all nuggets of truth on a particular matter.
“I’m constantly reminding our folks,” says Jeff Spaulding, pastor of North Hills United Methodist Church in St. Louis, “they should be listening for God’s voice while looking into the face of their fellow board member.”
Agreeing to disagree
But doesn’t consensus mean one person can derail every good idea that rolls down the track?
No. Not all disagreement is created equal. When the chairperson attempts to wrap up a discussion with, “I sense the group is saying we should go ahead,” the board is given the opportunity to register its disagreement on one of four levels:
Level 1: “I am a bit uncomfortable going ahead with this proposal.”
This is the softest level, which simply communicates that the way the spiritual guide phrased the conclusion of the group’s overall feeling isn’t quite right for that person.
Level 2: “I disagree, but I do not wish to stand in the way.”
This is typical of most disagreement. By speaking up, the speaker has put the board on notice about his or her concern. But the proposal hasn’t been derailed.
Level 3: “Please put me down as opposed.”
This slows down the train, stimulating discussion about his or her concern. Other board members may pick up on the objection and let it shape other responses. The meeting is free to proceed, but the comment makes the group cautious, though it shouldn’t stand in the way of final action.
Level 4: “I am unable to unite with (or affirm) the proposal.”
Now the proposal has been derailed. The person is unwilling to step aside and allow the matter to move forward. There is clearly a lack of consensus. The normal procedure is to delay action until a later meeting. By the next meeting, the individual or group of individuals may conclude that there was a frivolous reason for objecting, or the proposal might be adjusted.
The key is that not all objections are given equal weight. Only when someone officially puts the board on notice (Level 4) does the proposal in its present form lurch off its tracks.
Of course, this method isn’t woodenly followed. After a while, boards learn how to disagree with each other, and good spiritual guides gently hold the reins on discussions.
“I’ve come to learn that everyone doesn’t have to be thrilled with every proposal,” says John Boggs, pastor of Long’s Chapel United Methodist Church at Lake Junaluska, North Carolina. “Dissent is legitimate; we can disagree without being disagreeable.”
John tells about a board discussion over whether to install air conditioning in the sanctuary, a $40,000 proposition. Some wanted it; others said, “Why don’t we wait until we build a new sanctuary?” Someone else said, “In my reading of Scripture, I can’t justify spending $40,000 to cool the sanctuary for only ten or twelve Sundays a year while just down the road there are people living in substandard housing.”
“I and the rest of the board needed to hear that truth,” says John. “We decided to postpone installing the air conditioner. Everybody must be committed to listening in a caring manner.”
Where to start
For eighteen months, Jeff Spaulding and a bevy of laity at North Hills Church labored to draft a Vision 2000 statement. Fifteen months into the process, they began interpreting the data, and for the final three months, using discernment by consensus, they winnowed the results down to a twenty-four-page document. Not a single vote was taken.
The committee handled such explosive issues as staffing and capital improvements. Sure, they had their differences, and the process dragged on longer than if they had used RRO, but in the end, no one left the committee resentful. The plan submitted to the congregation was the plan that 100 percent of the committee members believed God had for the church.
Of course, none of this happened fortuitously. Several years earlier, Jeff had started a small group that discussed Yearning to Know God’s Will, a workbook written by Danny Morris, which offers an entire section on how the church (not just individuals) can discern God’s will. Over time several people began to catch Jeff’s vision for a better way of making important decisions. “Wouldn’t it be nice if our church operated like this?” they began to say.
Out of that group emerged leaders who ended up on the church board. A year later when a board issue about how to repair the parking lot erupted in a geyser of hurt and anger, several board members expressed their dismay at the division rending their fellowship. Because of prior study, they were ready to say, “Let’s stop wounding each other and listen to hear what God wants for us.”
“There will be a teachable moment,” says John Boggs, “when a congregation goes head to head on an issue and realizes that ramming through that issue will only destroy the body of Christ.”
John prepared his church by inviting his administrative council (church board) to study Yearning to Know God’s Will. Not every board member accepted his invitation, but those who did met during the Sunday school hour, though John says now the setting didn’t provide enough time. He eventually moved the group to an evening meeting.
Another way John prepared the way for discernment was by preaching frequently on the work of the Holy Spirit. “John is one of the youngest ministers we’ve had,” says Frances Smith, chairperson of the administrative council at Long’s Chapel. “One old-time member said to me, ‘Do you realize John’s been here for over a year and that for most of the time he’s preached on the workings of the Holy Spirit?’
“John’s preaching generated a feeling of togetherness where it became okay to say, ‘I believe we’d better consider what the Holy Spirit would have us do in this situation.'”
Another important step is creating the mood in which discernment can take place. That’s as simple as starting meetings, for any committee, with more than a token prayer. Douglas Steere wrote, “When we meet for business, it is the same as if we’re meeting together for worship.”
John asked the nominating committee at Long’s Chapel to be a prayer group. He said, “Our purpose will be to make nominations out of our prayer rather than just being a nominating committee that opens the meeting with prayer.”
That raised a few eyebrows, John says. Some thought that meant more meetings, which it did. John requested that instead of scrambling to meet four times in late summer or early fall, the committee would meet monthly throughout the year. He wanted to make serving on the nominating committee more than just a seasonal job of slot-filling. No more arm-twisters. Just men and women who would seek God’s will to match the right person with the right ministry position.
More than just a job
Spiritual discernment is not quantum physics, but it does require men and women committed to listening for God’s voice. An important step is filling the church boards with active listeners.
Danny Morris recommends pastors start with the nominating committee. If that group becomes committed to discerning God’s will, it is more likely to nominate for other boards people who seek God’s best for the church. The one feeds the others.
One of the most important lessons for the nominating committee to learn is patience. If there’s not a qualified candidate for a church board position, then the position should remain vacant. Morris calls this “stripping the church down to its fighting weight.”
Things can get sticky, however, when someone yearns to serve on a board but isn’t qualified. In one church, a woman wanted to be appointed chair of a high-level committee, and everyone knew it. The situation got more messy when instead of appointing this woman, the nominating committee stonewalled, and the position remained open for several months. They had discerned that she was not the best candidate. Angry, the woman eventually left the church.
Of course, there’s the other side of the coin: qualified candidates who turn down the nomination. John Boggs remembers when the nominating committee applied the discernment process and came to a consensus about two names. They contacted both candidates, asked them to pray about it, and said, “Get back to us in a week or so.”
Both rejected the nominations. One said, “I’ve been called to teach Sunday school, not serve on a board.” So the committee returned to the drawing board and came up with another name. Thanks but no thanks, was the reply. Then it happened again. Six months later, the committee finally found the right person, someone excited to serve on that committee.
Each one who rejected the nomination, however, was a little taken back at how much time and effort the committee had invested. “I’m not your person,” one of them said, “but I’m glad to know how seriously you take these nominations.”
“We’ve stopped trying to get people to take jobs,” says John. “We’re trying to help people discover their call for ministry.
“We tell our candidates, ‘If you can’t take the job in the spirit of love and a sense of God’s call, don’t take it.'”
Full light
When a board uses spiritual discernment, it’s as if the idea being discussed sits on a small rotating table in the center of a light-filled room. Instead of taking on each other, the people in the room take on the idea sitting on the table. Every time someone speaks, the idea rotates a degree or two, and then everyone views the idea a little differently than before.
Somebody else speaks; the idea shifts again. And again. Until like a light-refracting prism the idea is hit by the light of God’s truth, and everyone can see it: God’s will is discerned.
Spiritual discernment is no panacea, no three easy steps. It’s not a technique; it’s a way of life, a way of doing church that harnesses the wisdom of the laity to find God’s will for the church. Yet it’s not without a price.
“We must give up everything in order to find God’s will,” says Morris. “That means sublimating all of our wishes, our desires, our turfdoms. Only when our selfishness dies can God’s will for the church be resurrected.”
Copyright © 1997
