Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 37, No. 21 Home Page
I am convinced that much of the turmoil experienced in our MB churches and MB conferences (when we have turmoil) stems from our failure to make clear decisions. Making decisions is a vital part of our functioning together. Decision-making does not always involve choosing good over evil (although clearly it does sometimes). More often, it involves choosing the best out of several good things, or even choosing one good thing over other equally good things because we can't do everything.
The lack of clear decisions leads to confusion, frustration, ange, bitterness and wrangling--far more often even than making wrong decisions. If it is clear, a wrong decision can at least be recognized and later reversed. There is a necessity for clarity in three areas.
1. The decision itself must be clear. Sometimes we are unable to reach agreement. In such cases, we sometimes resort to passing a vague resolution so that it appears we agree when we do not. Such resolutions do not resolve disagreements. They lead to more confusion and frustration.
Sometimes also, a clear recommendation is presented in a meeting, and objections are raised to it. Those presenting the recommendation may say, "Let's pass the recommendation as presented, and we will all understand that it includes modifications to meet those objections." This means that the motion we pass means something other than what it says; what it really means has not been defined. Some people will think it means one thing, some will think it means something else, and some will insist on the literal meaning even though we agreed that the literal meaning was not the actual one. It is better to vote down a sion, and reach consensus before it presents a proposal; the board must not assume that a congregational vote will somehow make up for inadequacies in its recommendation. I was once in a congregation (non-MB) in which the elders board presented a pastoral candidate to the congregation for a vote. Someone asked if the board was unanimous in proposing the candidate, and the response was that two of the eight elders were not in favour. The pastoral candidate was not accepted, and the whole process was a waste of the congregation's time. If the board cannot agree on a clear recommendation, no recommendation should be taken to the congregation/convention.
The congregational/conference vote must also have integrity. It must be a real opportunity for the people to decide whether or not they accept the recommendation. Sometimes when a board presents a proposal and people raise questions, the board responds, "Just pass this. Trust us." This lacks integrity. If the congregation is to trust the board to make a decision, then the board should make the decision. If the congregation is asked to make the decision, it should be given the information and time necessary for it to come to a firm conclusion.
3. A positive congregational/conference vote should not be confused with congregational/conference commitment to a proposal. Sometimes leaders focus only on trying to get a congregation/conference to vote in favour of a recommendation. The vote can then be manipulated (deliberately) or distorted (unintentionally) in a variety of ways.
One of the most common ways to manipulate or distort a vote is for the leaders to assume the outcome. They say, "All in favour, raise your hand" (or even more intimidating, "All in favour, stand up"). This is especially effective if the congregation is conditioned to vote yes by having this meaningful vote follow a series of meaningless votes such as votes to accept reports. Would the vote be different if the moderator asked "those opposed" to vote first? Are opposing votes even asked for?
At other times, a vote is distorted by other factors. Sometimes a delegation is tired after a long day or a long meeting. Sometimes a recommendation is presented without adequate time for the congregation/conference to read it, consider it and pray about it. It is not acceptable, for instance, for a board to present a multipage, theologically-or-financially-complex document and ask for an immediate commitment. Major, detailed recommendations should be handed out well in advance (as is done through the annual board reports issue of the MB Herald).
Sometimes a congregation/conference is not given adequate information to make a decision. Often this is just that a board has been careless. It would be far more serious if a board were to deliberately withhold information (such as financial implications) because it fears that if this information were known, it would reduce support for the recommendation.
Sometimes a church business meeting/conference convention cannot properly vote because it is not adequately attended. (If the "quorum requirement" is set low enough, the meeting may still be official and legal, while still being inadequate.) Sometimes attendance is inadequate if significant elements of a congregation/conference (such as seniors or youth) are absent.
Whatever the reason, a distorted or manipulated vote does not constitute a commitment on the part of the congregation/conference. If the object is to win a vote, it can be pushed through with as little notice as possible. However, if the object is commitment, the process should be given as much attention as possible. Boards should not ask, "What was the vote?" They should ask, "What is the level of commitment?" What leaders should be seeking is real commitment to a proposal, whether that is achieved by a vote or by some other means. Unless the congregation/conference is really committed to the proposal, it will fail.
Any attempt to manipulate a vote may boomerang, reducing trust in the leadership and hence commitment to leadership's proposal. Thus, it is foolish for a board to manipulate a vote and then try to use guilt to force people to live by the results of that vote. (On the other hand, a congregation/convention should take responsibility for decisions it has properly made.) A board should also not say that a church is unanimously or overwhelmingly in favour of something if only a small minority of the congregation was present at a vote. (100% of 10% is still only 10%.)
If you want to see what people are really committed to, watch how they vote with their feet, their wallets and their time. Every year, MB conventions (almost always unanimously) endorse MB conference budgets; the real test of commitment is whether congregations actually pay their dues (and many do). A congregation may vote to call a new pastor; one test of their commitment is whether they listen to his sermons.
Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 37, No. 21 Home Page