Community of Grace

Decision-Making Process

He drew a circle that cut me out.
"Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout!"
But love and I with the wit to win,
We drew a circle that took him in.

Christ is like a single body,
which has many parts; it is
still one body, even though it is
made up of different parts.
In the same way, all of us, Jews
and Gentiles, slaves and free,
have been baptized into the one
body by the same Spirit, and we
have all been given the one Spirit
to drink. -- Paul (I Cor. 12)

Introduction

Gay and Lesbian people especially need groups that build up, support, encourage, and enable us to make decisions which affect our lives. We feel that the following decision-making process and its rationale can enable the Community of Grace to make decisions and deal with conflect in a way that will encourage both personal and community growth and strength.

Christian faith at its best is not concerned with competition for position and power or climbing ladders of "success." Christian faith is about holding hands, being in a circle and reaching out to include others in an ever-widening circle. This circle is one of celebration as we celebrate God's inclusive love and our response to it as we grow in faith and service together.

Therefore we seek to make decisions in a way that conserves and enhances the humanity of people, encourages cooperation, creativity, flexibility, diversity, and sharing of power and responsibility. Best of all, we strengthen community by this process.

The following outlines a process that can be used in Community meetings as well as committee meetings.

In the smaller gatherings and with the easily decided issues, the discussion periods can be shorter and the flow less structured.

Definitions:
"Proposer" - One who raises a concern and proposes a solution/decision
"Consensus" - Solution/decision which is mutually satisfactory to all.

Steps for Group Decision

1. "Proposer" raises concern, with proposed decision or solution.
2. Short period of silent meditation and gathering of thoughts and feelings.
3. Discussion period (15 min.):
   1. Proposer clarifies details of problem and solution proposed
   2. Alternative solutions are brainstormed
   3. Consequences of all alternatives are predicted
   4. Incorporate concerns/alternatives as much as possible
4. Proposer reads tentative decision.
5. Test for consensus by vote.
6. If unanimous: Congratulations! Decision is made.
   If more than 2/3 in favor, go to step 7.
   if close (less than 2/3 in favor), go to step 11.

*** (More than 2/3 in favor:) ***

1. All concerned consider alternatives/work out differences in meeting or in caucus. (5 min.)
2. Repeat steps 4 and 5.
3. If not a consensus (unanimous), clarify concerns and discuss whether issue needs to be decided. Discuss alternatives.
4. If no consensus, send to Community for decision or table issue, keeping a record of concerns.

*** (Less than 2/3 in favor:) ***

1. Decide if issue is important enough to work on further by hand vote.
2. If no majority, table.
   If majority, discuss for 5 more minutes.
3. Repeat steps 4 and 5.
4. If 2/3 majority, go to step 9, 10, 11.
   If less than 2/3, send to community for decision or table as above, #11.

Note these details about the process:

The minute of silence is important because it encourages more considered responses, as well as responses from less vocal persons.

Discussion periods aim at clarifying information and sharing concerns rather than an adversary pro/con mentality. Coming out of discussion can be alternatives and modifications to the proposal as the wisdom of the group emerges.

Testing for consensus emphasizes the mutual importance of the group and individual. ("Have the concerns been sufficiently answered so that everyone can support this resolution?")

Voting to affirm consensus gives all the chance to actively say "Yes" besides just not saying "No."

Caucusing can speed the process toward decision, particularly in general meetings. Caucuses need to meet when other important issues are not being considered.

If votes are lopsided, consensus hasn't been reached and other alternatives need to be considered. This process conserves people, diversity, and demands lots of creativity, particularly the farther down the page one goes!

"Members" for the sake of this process of decision-making are those who have committed themselves to the covenant communtiy.

Sources:
Eve Mokotoff and Lonnie Weiss, "Our Process, Ourselves; or, What's Wrong With Robert?" Issues in Cooperation and Power, Summer '80.
Kenneth D. Benne, Thomas Bennett, Randy Thornton, "Decision-Making Process Within Groups," Greater Omaha Area Lutherans, 1974.
Matthew Fox, A Spirituality Named Compassion and the Healing of the Global Village, Humpty Dumpty and Us. Winston, 1979.

Dealing with Conflict

We need to accept that conflict is inherent to group life. Consequently it is expected and must be faced. This is true both for consensus as well as conflict/coersive approaches.

Issues will emerge in the life of the Community of Grace which evoke a considerable amount of controversy. Controversy and conflict are not in themselves either good or bad; it depends upon the way persons participate in the conflict. It is the goal of the principles set forth in the Covenant for Conflict to help us in the Community engage in constructive conflict in which:

1. All positions are expressed;
2. All feelings are aired;
3. Points of contention are identified
4. Resolution is sought which best expresses the will of everyone involved.

Covenant for Conflict

In order that conflicting issues in our Community may be dealt with and resolved onstructively:

1. I will express as clearly as possible my position on the issue.
2. I will acknowledge the feelings that are generated in me by the various solutions to the issue.
3. I will listen to what other persons think and feel about the issue. If during a discussion anyone would ask me if I heard what s/he said, I will immediately try to express his/her thoughts and feelings to his/her satisfaction.
4. I will seek to discover points of agreement between myself and all others and acknowledge these as a basis for common concern.
5. I will identify and acknowledge points of difference between myself and others and seek alternative solutions to the issues which might satisfy both sides.
6. I will concentrate on the issue as it occurs here and not assume that what happened somewhere else will automatically occur here.
7. I will not make accusations which attempt to discredit other persons' characters.
8. I will seek to resolve conflict so that people are conserved as well as problems solved.
9. I will try to be as concerned about those persons who are in conflict with me as about those persons who agree with me and will seek to maintain the right of all persons to disagree with each other.
10. I will strive for a stronger sense of COmmunity to emerge between persons engaged in conflict because they have wrestled together on a common problem.

Source:
A. Lee Schomer, Webster (Mich.) UCC, in Michigan Conference News, prior to May, 1974.

Related links:

Church at the Margins: paper written for a class at Iliff School of Theology during the spring quarter, 1997, and describes the Community of Grace as an experience of "Church at the Margins."

Back to Intro