Louisville Process Theology Network

Discernment and Consensus

Mar 04, 2010

You might remember that we posted an item on discernment in April, 2007. Here?’s another view of discernment we think you?’d find interesting.


?“Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. It is usually defined as meaning both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement. While not as common as other decision-making procedures, such as the parliamentary procedure, consensus is used by a wide variety of groups, from the theological such as the Quakers, to the economic such as the Dutch Polder Model.

Quaker consensus puts in place a simple time-tested decision-making structure that moves the group towards unity. This process allows for individual voices to be heard while providing a mechanism for dealing with disagreements.

The following aspects of the Quaker model are an adaptation prepared by Earlham College:

?• Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.

?• Discussion involves active listening and sharing information.

?• Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.

?• Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.

?• Differences are resolved by discussion. The facilitator ("clerk" or "convener" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.

?• The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a "minute" of the decision.

?• The group as a whole is responsible for the decision and the decision belongs to the group.

?• The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.

?• Dissenters' perspectives are embraced.

Key components of Quaker consensus include a belief in a common humanity and the ability to decide together. The goal is "unity, not unanimity." Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator is understood as serving the group rather than acting as person-in-charge.

While the members are articulating the emerging consensus, they can see their views taken into account and begin to see clear on the decision they are likely to support. Questions and comments are addressed to the group and instead of any specific person. The group?’s eventual ?“Sense of the Meeting?” is the united wisdom of those present reached by means of their shared discernment of God's will.?”


Excerpt from www.earlham.edu.