Peace in Denominational and Congregational Life

Earle W. Fike, Jr.
A conference paper presented "At the Crossroads: a Historic Peace Church in the 21st Century"
Bridgewater College Forum of Religious Studies
March 27, 2003

Introduction

Bill Peterson, Florida State Football coach gave the following instruction to his players: "You guys pair up in groups of three, then line up in a circle." The task given to me in this presentation is almost as daunting. It targets the following journey how can we conduct ourselves in ways that will be more in keeping with our best understanding of what the New Testament would expect of us as members of a community of faith.

The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the culturally diverse, highly discrepant, opinionated, fledgling community of faith in Rome, said: "Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual up building."ⁱ We're a far piece from living that admonition. While the early church in Rome was just beginning, we've had years to work at this, and it still seems as hard to us as pairing off in threes and lining up in a circle.

We begin with an affirmation. We will not be able to worship, serve, and do business together in peace until we are at peace with who we are. When I speak of peace with who we are, I do not mean content with who we are. I mean, understanding who we are now without necessarily being satisfied with who we are.

I. Specifically, we must be at peace with who we are as a community of faith that has no creed other than the New Testament. Among other reasons, that position began as a fierce reaction to being forced to define individual faith on the basis of ecclesiastically prescribed creeds. In baptism, we confess our sin, accept Christ as Lord, and express our intention to live in keeping with the spirit and teaching of Jesus. As members, we are free to live and share within a community founded on those confessions. But we are also free to express dissent without fear of excommunication. Such a position requires a willingness to live within what the community of faith agrees to at any given time, completely aware that God might provide new insight that would radically change what we've long held as dear. No creed but the New Testament is a strong position for thinking people in a changing world. It's a strong position for faithful followers who are eager to grow in their faithfulness.

It is not, however, an easy position for those who wish for absolutes; who long for the comfort of homogeneous agreement. Truth be known, we are at "sixes and sevens" in the secret envy we carry for those who know the peace of corporate agreement that comes with a clear authoritarian mandate.

The early New Testament church experienced similar growing pains. Think what a struggle they must have had with members rooted in the clear uniformity of Jewish law alongside Gentiles rooted in pagan practices and celebrations. The Apostle Paul's reminder that "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."ⁱⁱ surely suggests that their respective religious certainties and comfortable dependable traditions were challenged by the apostle's radical teachings regarding the character and life style required of those, now new creatures in Christ. Until we are at peace with who we are on the matter of creedal style beliefs as over against varying interpretations of the New Testament as our rule of faith and practice, we will have trouble being at peace with one another in our living and serving.

II. Two, we are a people living with varied opinions regarding Biblical Interpretation. We come from and continue a tradition in which Bible study is paramount. The community prayerfully studies, listens, and then interprets community positions that become expressions of our faith. No one person speaks for or has authority over the community. But individual prophetic voices are encouraged because the spirit may speak through individual voices.

While we are unified in our desire to better understand the Word, and make faithful application to life as we understand and live it now, we are not together in our understanding of the Bible. It is for most of us, The Word of God. There are those among us who believe the Word is inerrant as it is preserved for us in the English language. There are those among us who prefer to take into account the original languages; the textual transitions that have occurred across the years, and the scholarly interpretations of the contextual and cultural implications of what it meant then. The Annual Conference statement on Biblical Authority has served us well. (It models an approach which might well be used in our discussion of other issues, including Homosexuality and the Church). It's style of saying "we affirm" and "we are not agreed on" has allowed us to be in conversation with one another in our differences and still be in community. The section on "holding one another in love and fellowship" is, in my opinion, a masterful statement on what it means to be Brethren in our day. But despite all of strengths of the paper, it is an uneasy truce for many. And our difference quickly raises its head when we are discussing "hot button" issues that make our blood race. Until we are more at peace with who we are on the matter of Biblical Interpretation, we will have trouble being at peace with one another in our denominational and congregational life.

III. Further, we will not be able to live and serve peacefully in community until we are at peace with who we are in terms of polity and policy. According to one accepted definition, polity is the form of government, and policy covers the guidelines and manner in which polity is exercised.

Our polity is somewhat unique. The word democracy comes from people ruled by people. The Church of the Brethren is a part of the living body of Christ. We are a community of faith, living with common ties and laws, under the rule of Christ and the New Testament, and governed by members of the community. Our polity emphasizes both community and individual. We honor community agreement and encourage and respect individual initiative.

Our policy affirms that Annual Conference is our highest authority. That is the encompassing large community. We know both historically and currently that individual districts and local congregations, who comprise individual communities under Annual Conference, have latitude in adopting or ignoring Church of the Brethren statements. That constitutes a nod toward strong individualism at a local corporate level. The same is true in our local congregations. A congregation may have strong tenets but allow for individual differences.

In the eyes of many this policy is a weakness. We say one thing, and then allow so many variations in how what we say is interpreted in the life of our members, that the stock criticism is a simple and loud complaint: "we don't know what we believe." Still, it is my conviction that our policy is a strength. Our unwillingness to enforce positions has allowed us to live in full commitment to Jesus Christ without demanding absolute agreement in the practice of what that means. To me that position is, not surprisingly, very much in the same spirit as "our only creed is the New Testament."

Consider! It has allowed us to move beyond dress as a test of faith. Members who dress plain and regular, worship and serve in the same congregation. It has allowed us to have a strong official denominational peace position without disenfranchising or separating ourselves from those who, because of conscience, choose to serve in the military. Conscientious objectors live, worship, and seek peace together with those who served in the military. It has allowed us to have a denominational position that supports the ordination of women without a persona-non-grata censuring of congregations who refuse to consider a woman pastor.

We are not a dictatorial community. We are an invitational community relying on persuasion to win support, rather than the threat of exclusion and excommunication as the means for preserving community agreement. That stance follows our understanding of a Christ like God who is more invitational and accepting than belligerently coercive.

To those who, because of our policy, say we don't know what we believe, we can say, we believe that Christ is Lord, and that our neighbors near and far are our brothers and sisters even when they don't agree with us. We can say we are people of a different way of living; committed to celebrating what we know, and eager to know more than we know. We can say we are a people out of a peace tradition who try, by the manner of our living, to demonstrate how Christ would have us live in peace. We can say we are a people who have covenanted together to live in keeping with the spirit and teaching of Jesus. We can say the whole NT is our creed, and therefore we are not free to pick and choose from it only that over which we can achieve complete unanimity. We can say it is our conviction that differences of opinion which exist in the midst of a loving community dialogue are ultimately more New Testament, and in the final analysis, more peaceful, than excommunication and exclusion.

Contemporary as we are in many ways, our historic Anabaptist unwillingness to acquiesce to unquestioned authoritarian mandated belief is still with us. It is in our genes to question and seek for new guidance from the Holy Spirit. Our historic DNA chain also exhibits a sincere desire to strive for and find peaceful consensus on decisive issues. We don't like to feel distanced from one another. And our unwillingness to concretize any consensus we reach by refusing to revisit it again in the light of new guidance from the Holy Spirit is germane to our non creedal character.

Paul's vision for the new believers at Philippi as "being in full accord and of one mind" is surely a New Testament attribute to which we may aspire.ⁱⁱⁱ Meantime, we can still be a faithful community of faith whose present unanimity is found in our commitment and service to Jesus Christ, and our unwillingness to jeopardize or destroy community in the process of practicing our policy. We will not be able to worship, serve, and do business together in peace until we are at peace with who we without being satisfied with who we are.

We now turn to a question. Being who we are, how can we conduct ourselves in decision making in ways which will be more in keeping with our best understanding of what the New Testament would expect of us?

Our text is still before us. "Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual up building." In our search, we should not stray from that admonition. But neither should we ignore a wise contemporary philosopher by the name of Yogi Berra who has a word of caution for us. "You've got to be careful if you don't know where you are going cause you might not get there."^iv

Robert's Rules of Order were designed to "make it possible for assemblies and societies to free themselves from confusion and dispute over rules governing the use of different motions of parliamentary law."^v Chief objections to their use shared by many include: they were not prepared for communities of faith, they create winners and losers, and they set up an adversarial relationship in which specific positions manipulate the system to gain advantage over opposing positions.

Is it totally the fault of the system or might it also be the way we use the system? The 216th Annual Conference Booklet printed a normal set of conference rules with a brief listing of parliamentary procedures. Those simplified instructions were followed by more than a page of admonitions on "Accountability to One Another." Let me share parts of that material.

"One of the elements which sets the Church of the Brethren apart from other denominations is the handling of issues by the delegate body of Annual Conference. Rather than select an individual or an elite group of clergy to represent us, the Church of the Brethren affirms that the Spirit of God speaks best through the body of believers . . . Individuals from that body, delegate or otherwise, may feel moved to speak to the body at large in order to inform the dialog which shapes our understanding of God's will. In order for this dialog to be authentic, it should be constrained by as few rules as possible . . . this dialog should not mirror or mimic worldly conceptions of what it takes to "win" a position . . . In that venue the ability to shout down the opposition, or turn them off altogether, is perceived as victory . . . There is, after all, no debate involved. Annual Conference is a process of listening and discerning God's call to the church . . . Brethren rather desire first to serve each other . . . and trust the Spirit to act through the body . . . It is important for those who hold strong beliefs on all sides of an issue to trust the body to speak without manipulation . . . It is of high importance that the body of Christ listen."^vi

Nothing in these instructions violates Robert's Rules of Order. This counsel to ourselves constitutes a preferred stance from which to use Robert's Rules. It should be noted that, even if we have read them, it's clear we have not taken these instructions to heart.

In recent years, Moderators have modified our use of Robert's Rules. While speakers are called in the order in which they come to the microphones, the long lines and predetermined speeches do not encourage progressive thinking on an issue. Moderators have sometimes helpfully suggested a procedure that allows for a time of discussion before any amendments are permitted. That is a helpful process unless action is taken before adequate time is given for the delegates to seek agreeable changes. Some moderators, in an effort to be fair, have controlled discussion by limiting speeches to a "for and against" sequence, a fact that seems to emphasize adversarial rather than consensus seeking conversation. In the use of these and other variances, moderators usually ask for and receive delegate permission. Despite our somewhat loose use of Robert's Rules, they have worked fairly well on ordinary decisions that are not "hot button" items of business.

They have not worked so well on critical emotionally charged issues. But that fact has not gone unnoticed. In 1988, Annual Conference adopted a structural framework for dealing with strongly controversial issues, called "Special Response" issues.^vii That action carefully outlines (1) the process for Standing Committee to declare a query a matter for Special Response, (2) the rules for committee appointment and function, including procedure for gathering and sharing information with the whole community of faith, and (3) the procedure for Annual Conference discussion and decision making in considering "Special Response Queries." It is a very involved process requiring major time in preparation, in discussion, and in trying to find as much agreement as possible on any final action. Among all the queries Annual Conference has processed since 1988, there have been queries dealing with homosexuality; organ and tissue donation; the simple life; assisted suicide; human genetic engineering and fetal tissue; and finally in 2002 the licensing and ordination of homosexuals. Not once has the process been used. Apparently, moderators and standing committee members did not deem any of the above issues as strongly controversial. Shouldn't we be asking ourselves whether we have the interest or will to implement more fraternal and caring procedures in our dialog and decision making?

There are, however, at least two options related to procedures for finding consensus which might be considered to replace our historic use of parliamentary procedure. There is not time to investigate these in depth. Let me sketch them.

(1) C.T. Lawrence Butler and Amy Rothstein have printed a handbook on Formal Consensus decision making.^viii The process has a clearly defined structure which requires a commitment to active cooperation, disciplined speaking and listening, and respect for the contributions of every member. The method proceeds through levels that include: (a.) an introductory level in which the issue is presented and only questions of clarification are allowed; (b.) a first level consisting only of broad open discussion with (c.) a second level in which concerns are identified and recorded; (d.) and a third level in which conversation is allowed to focus on resolving the groups concerns. There are three closing options beyond the possibility of reached consensus. Stand aside, send to committee, or declare a block. Specified roles required to facilitate this procedure include: Agenda Planners, a Facilitator who conducts the discussion; a Peacekeeper who may suggest interventions to calm or move the discussion along; an Advocate who might interrupt the meeting and invite the individual who is having trouble being understood to step aside for one-on-one conversation; a Timekeeper; a Public Scribe; a Notetaker; and a Doorkeeper. Butler and Rothstein freely admit that the process is time consuming, and if members of the group do not follow the process, it can be very inefficient.

The philosophy behind this process is inviting, and I do not mean to discount it's value. However as I reviewed it's 56 pages, I became aware of a sensation I felt recently when I saw the listed side effects for one medication that said, "may cause constipation or diarrhea." Not being favorable to either choice, one might elect to stay with the original problem. Given only this consensus option, I might elect to stay with an updated Christian modification of Robert's Rules.

(2) The other choice has more possibility. Many churches, and ecumenical bodies, including the World Council of Churches, are addressing alternative options for decision making. In the Nov. 6-19 issue of the Christian Century, Janice Love, a United Methodist member of the Central Committee of the World Council, shares that organization's decision to try a consensus approach to it's decision making. I commend the article to you.^ix Eden Grace, who represents the Friends in the WCC Central Committee says, "how we make decisions matter, because how we treat each other testifies to whether we are living in the Spirit or not. Our behavior as Christians in governing bodies should reflect love, respect, and generosity rather than suspicion and competition."^x That sentiment surely has root relationship to the way our friends the Quakers seek to find what they call the "sense of the meeting." ( For more in depth study of Quaker background and experience in consensus, I've included two resources in the notes to this text. Beyond Majority Rule by Michael J Sheeran^xi and Friends for 300 Years, by Howard Brinton^xii)

The WCC procedure for consensus states "A consensus is reached when one of the following occurs: 1) all are in agreement (unanimity); 2) most are in agreement and those who disagree are content that the discussion has been full and fair and that the proposal expresses the general "mind of the meeting"; 3) the meeting acknowledges that there are various opinions, and it is agreed that these be recorded in the body of the proposal; 4) it is agreed that the proposal be postponed; 5) it is agreed that no decision can be reached."^xiii

Quaker Howard Brinton's work reveals an historically proven similar process and includes the following observation; "The objective of the Quaker method is to discover Truth which will satisfy everyone more fully than did any position previously held. Each and all can then say, 'that is what I really wanted, but did not realize it."^xiv

A life long Quaker and personal friend, shares the following description of consensus.

"In practice, coming to a sense of the meeting depends heavily upon the skills of the clerk (the presiding officer) and the respect and confidence the members of the group making the decision have for him or her. The clerk listens carefully to what each speaker says and recognizes those who also want to speak, in order, and without excessive hurry. Friends go into such sessions expecting to spend time and always after a lengthy period of silent worship. Experienced Friends will come with their own views and often a high degree of passion, but they also know everything changes when you are searching for God's will or a decision which is not yet clear . . . I have seen clerks, for example, when anger was rising among the group, note that reality, and call the group into a period of worship. Then, after a while, the business meeting resumes, and in a calmer spirit those present continue working toward a decision . . . Big, difficult decisions often take hours or days. A few have taken years. So patience and good will are essential for coming to a sense of the meeting . . . Sometimes, however, a house is divided and a sense of the meeting can't be reached. However, if the process has had the time to work and Friends want within themselves to agree with one another with integrity, small miracles of coming to a sense of the meeting occur."^xv

Some fear that consensus seeking produces only middle ground compromise and therefore strong prophetic voices and positions will be washed out in the process. Many of those who have used consensus testify that is not the case.

If we are interested in pursuing consensus as practiced by the WCC and our Quaker friends, we need to be aware of the following:

The chair or the clerk has a key role, a power not usually granted by our community of faith to any individual. Some qualities necessary to fulfill that role appear in the endnotes.^xvi
There must be a commitment on the part of the community of faith to take the time necessary for consensus. Many will chaff at what they consider inefficiency and waste of time.
For the process to work, participants need to be willing to truly listen to others.

Conclusion

In being at peace with who we are without being satisfied, I ask; Is there not a real place for a denomination where people are willing to live and be of "one mind and in full accord" in their agreement that Jesus is Lord, while agreeing to disagree on certain tenets of the faith? Is there not a place for a people of God willing to state what they believe and, at the same time be open to new light? Is there not a real place where thinkers, questors, those weary of archaic pronouncements from a history no longer experienced, are allowed to question their faith; invite comment; listen to brothers and sisters, listen to the Spirit, come to new insight, or disagree without feeling disenfranchised? Is there not a place for a denomination which recognizes that the warmth and safety of unanimity should not hold precedence over the exhilaration, the challenge, the excitement of participating in a growing faith that is, at once in tune with the truths of the New Testament and the perplexities of contemporary life. I say there is.

Being who we are, should we consider changing our deliberative procedures. The answer to that is yes if we want to "pursue what makes for peace and mutual up building." It certainly would be a step in providing a process that allows for being together without unanimity, but with more harmony. Local congregations and districts could move in this direction more easily than Annual Conference. For Annual Conference, we will need to bring a query, and use an adapted procedure of Robert's Rules which we've already designed to handle controversial issues. We will need to give up our secret pleasure in looking forward to "healthy" peace church conflicts that satisfy our desire to win and be right. We will need to place far more authority in a moderator than we have for many generations. Among other things, that would mean a need to be more concerned about the qualifications of the moderator to do the task, than we are about making sure the honor is passed around and governed according to geographic, cultural, and gender credentials. We will need to review our decision to shorten Annual Conference and move to the number of days that supports the significant time necessary to work toward consensus. And we will need to place time to do our business as the priority for time dedicated to Annual Conference.

But probably more difficult than making the decision is the truth that, to use a different process like consensus, we ourselves will need to be different. We will need what is often referred to in our contemporary language, as "an attitude adjustment." We will need to learn to think passionately and interact patiently; to be strong in conviction while caring in relationship. To accomplish the ability and willingness to "pursue what makes for peace and mutual up building," we may need to take to heart another scripture, "Create in me a clean heart O God, and renew a right spirit within me."^xvii In it's biblical context, that is a plea which recognizes the ability of our creator God to make anything and all things new. In our case it might be translated as a prayer which says, "create in me an unpolluted heart and an up building spirit" that will allow us to continue the work of Jesus, peacefully, simply, together. If that can happen, perhaps we might come close to deserving an identification akin to how Tertullian spoke of the power and witness of the diverse early Christians, "See how they love one another."^xviii And if that happens, then perhaps Alexander Mack's vision of the Brethren being known by the manner of their living can become an honorable reality.

Notes

Romans 14; 19 NRSV
Galatians 3:28 NRSV
Philippians 2:2 NRSV
Berra, Yogi, The Yogi Book, Workman Publishing, New York, NY , 1998, p. 102
Robert, Henry M., Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, Scott Foresmand & Co., Glenview IL. 1981
Full text can be found: 216th Annual Conference booklet p. 61-62
Annual Conference Minutes, p. 674-681
Butler and Rothstein, On Conflict and Consensus, Food Not Bombs Publishing, Portland ME, 1991
Love, Janice Can we All Agree?, The Christian Century, November 6-19, 2002, p. 8
IBID p 8
Sheeran, Michael J., Beyond Majority Rule Philadelphia Yearly Meeting 1983
Brinton, Howard, Friends for 300 Years Harper and Bros, NY 1952 pp. 99-117
Love, Janice op.cit.
IBID p 109
Mullen, Tom, personal correspondence
1. experience in and knowledge of the community of faith,
2. a deep desire to assist the assembly in having a full and fair airing of viewpoints,
3. the confidence and respect of the meeting,
4. the ability to perceive and helpfully respond to what is going on in the process,
5. the ability to articulate to the community what is being said,
6. the willingness to help those who require assistance in developing or forwarding a proposal.
7. the willingness use the authority of the office to call the assembly into accountability.
Psalms 51: 10 NRSV
Ely, Virginia, I Quote, Fleming H. Revell Co. N..J. 1947 p. 64

Voices For an Open Spirit