After reading the final report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity (PUP) of the Church, I was astounded. I never imagined that they would offer our heady, theology-obsessed denomination an emphasis on humble and prayerful discernment of God’s will.
Those of us Presbyterians steeped in the Christian mystical, spiritual tradition have long recognized the glaring absence of an approach to church polity emphasizing humble, communal discernment. Our denomination has been trapped in a cycle of continual debate and disagreement over issues such as the definition of “Reformed,” what the essential tenets of the church are, worship styles, ordination requirements, and scriptural interpretation. What has been missing is a willingness of people on both sides of the debates to sit down with their theological adversaries, and to humbly ask together what Christ is calling us all to do, and what the Spirit is leading us to do.
We are a dysfunctional denomination in the truest sense of the term, which is that we function “in pain.” Just as spouses mired in marital discord think, “I want what’s best and right, and my spouse is the cause of all our problems,” people on each side of the Presbyterian division tend to see themselves as just and noble, and their adversaries as deceitful and dishonorable. And so we remain a denomination in pain.
It is this refusal to continue the cycle of division that makes the PUP task force’s call to discernment so astounding. They have called on us to overcome our clannish and tribal instincts by trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring communion back to the body of Christ that is the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
What the PUP report did not identify, though, was how to bring humble prayer and discernment back into our deliberations. And they failed to identify one of the main culprits that allows the cycle of division to persist, which are the very rules of engagement that we use to decide matters: Robert’s Rules of Order.
Robert’s Rules were developed initially to bring stability and order to church meetings, which, in the mid-1800s, often were rancorous and chaotic affairs. Robert’s Rules have been a blessing to congregations and denominations for more than 100 years, yet, ironically, it has increasingly contributed to our division in this present generation.
There are some fundamental problems with Robert’s Rules that we don’t even notice in our denomination — problems that prevent us from engaging in humble, communal discernment (and problems I’ve identified in my book, Becoming a Blessed Church). The first problem is a basic, implicit theological assumption that Robert’s Rules makes, which is that God is on the side of the majority. This may seem like an outrageous comment, but think about the theology embedded in a “majority rules” process. Aren’t we implicitly saying that God is on the side of that majority? Is it not possible for the Spirit to speak through a minority?
A second problem with Robert’s Rules, one that exacerbates the first, is that it doesn’t ask people to humbly and prayerfully discern answers when voting on issues. Think about how we take votes. We vote by responding to the moderator’s call: “All in favor say ‘aye.’ All opposed say ‘no.'” Where’s the discernment in that? We don’t ask what God wants, only what the voters want. What if we changed the question to “All who sense this may be God’s will say ‘aye'”? How much would our denomination change if, in the process of asking people to vote, we preceded votes with a time of humble prayer, asking commissioners to put aside their egos and pride, and to vote on what they sensed God was calling them to vote, rather than on what they wanted?
Third, Robert’s Rules actively discourages discernment by forcing people into opposing camps on issues, instead of inviting them to prayerfully consider all sides of an issue. Think about how most governing bodies engage in debate. They typically invite people of opposing views to come to a microphone and (alternating from pro to con) state their cases. We invite people into debate, a process that automatically creates opposition rather than discernment. You can find evidence of this in the word itself, which comes from the Old French root, battallier, meaning to engage in a military or gladiatorial exercise. To debate means to take a battle off the battlefield and into a more civilized arena. In the end, it is still a battle between sides, which, in the PC(USA), literally pitches the right side of Christ’s body against the left.
A better way is to engage in dialogue, which literally means, “through speaking.” Dialogue is meant to bring greater understanding between people. The process of discernment always encourages dialogue because dialogue offers the potential for transformation of thought as we listen for Christ’s voice in each other. Where is there room for dialogical discernment in Robert’s Rules?
Finally, Robert’s Rules hinders the use of Scripture in the process. Where in our denominational meetings is there room for shining biblical light on issues? Typically any exploration of Scripture must be done prior to a meeting. Yet it’s clear that the PUP task force’s perspectives changed when they began to study Scripture together. Seldom do we allow for the simple reading of Scripture in our deliberations, which is ironic since the Reformed tradition is supposed to be grounded in Scripture.
To take this point a bit further, the use of Robert’s Rules actually leads us to disregard the guidance of Scripture on how to engage and relate with each other. For instance, in our divisive debates we continually violate the spirit of Ephesians, which encourages us to be humble, patient, bearing with each other in love, and making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. We violate the spirit of Philippians when we fail to be like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose, doing nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, and in humility considering others better than ourselves, looking not only to our own interests, but also to the interests of others. While we are free to bring these attitudes into meetings, there is nothing in Robert’s Rules that holds us accountable to biblical behavior.
I don’t advocate abolishing Robert’s Rules. That would lead us back to the chaos and divisiveness that existed prior to their creation. Instead, I am advocating that we create a template to lay atop Robert’s Rules, a Robert’s Rules of Discernment, that brings the spiritual and scriptural into our practice of polity. You can find a proposed template for higher governing bodies, one that has been worked on for the past eight years and is being considered by several presbyteries, at the following link on The Presbyterian Outlook Web site (click here for the proposal). It is intended to be a starting point for us to consider as we seek ways to comply with the Peace Unity and Purity Task Force’s proposal urging us “to explore the use of alternative forms of discernment and decision-making as a complement to parliamentary procedure, especially in dealing with potentially divisive issues.”
At present we in the PC(USA) are trapped in cycle of debate and division over many issues. But this is not the pattern of communal life that Scripture calls us to. And there are alternatives, as the PUP task force reminds us.
N. Graham Standish is pastor of Calvin Church in Zelienople, Pa. He is the author of Humble Leadership – Being Radically Open to God’s Guidance and Grace (Alban, 2007).
