Striving for consensus in community makes for tedious discussions and inefficient processes. Consensus seems like the worst way for communities to make decisions on issues--except when you consider the alternatives!
A case study serves to highlight this paradox and the ultimate wisdom of a consensus model for any community that trusts its members and respects each person's convictions. We heard recently of a Christian community that faced a decision about financial support for a friend in a conflictive area of Central America. While there was no problem with the proposal itself, division arose in the community over the friend's possible connections with guerrilla factions in Central America.
One side felt that community support for this person would signify lending assistance to parties involved in violence. The others in the group believed the community had no right to dictate the terms of its help to someone whose integrity was respected by all. Thus a dilemma and lack of consensus.
Worse yet, each side in the dilemma initially held their positions as matters of principle--nonviolence on the one hand and respect for the friend's conscience on the other. At that moment the community's decision-making ability came to a standstill, paralyzed by essential and seemingly insurmountable differences.
What the community had going for it was a history of respect among its members and the belief that however bleak the prospect for consensus, it could be achieved. For weeks, we were told, this issue of assisting the friend in Central America dominated the community's Wednesday evening meeting. Discussions ranged over theoretical and practical questions of nonviolence (which everyone in the community espoused), moral questions around complicity with groups and persons who opt for armed struggle, the many degrees of such complicity, and of course respect for the conscience of the friend in question.
As mentioned, the most difficult obstacle to consensus centered on the seriousness with which convictions were held by each side. At least in the beginning of the process, all held that the question of whether to help this friend in Central America came down to a matter of personal conviction. Everyone in the community understood that the decision to offer assistance or not would inevitably violate consciences on one side or the other.
A major factor in the outcome was prayer. From the moment the community realized the seriousness of the discrepancy among them, they invoked the Holy Spirit. Jesus after all had promised "the Spirit of truth...will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). Prayer ultimately provided the solution.
After some two months of striving and failing to reach consensus--but with a growing sense that the division was narrowing--one of the leading advocates for not helping the community's friend in Central America conceded. He said that a night in personal prayer had convinced him that the good will of those on the other side of the question could allow him to stand aside and not block consensus. While still in disagreement with the proposed financial help, he no longer considered it a violation of his conscience.
His movement on the issue broke the logjam and others who had held a similar position followed his lead. The community breathed a sigh of relief, feeling that it had gained immensely from the experience and that the unwieldy process of seeking consensus had proven entirely worthwhile.
Some lessons emerge from this case study:
- Consensus avoids a tyranny of the majority.
- Consensus, therefore, respects each individual.
- Consensus can happen despite irreconcilable differences.
- Consensus in such cases requires prayer.
- Consensus builds community.
- Consensus deepens the spiritual life of the community.
Joe Nangle, OFM was outreach director of Sojourners when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!