What sets the church apart from secular institutions in determining the outcome of deliberations? Often not much. At past general councils, rules of procedure for the conduct of business were modelled on the parliamentary style of Robert's rules. But in such a multicultural setting, parliamentary rules can allow those who know them best to dominate the meeting, while limiting the participation of others.

The executive committee after worship in Prali, Italy

For Accra and beyond, the Alliance wants to develop a more participatory style of decision-making based on discerning God's will together. The Alliance is encouraged by the shift in many churches to consensus or discernment models, such as the Uniting Church in Australia.

After careful deliberation, the executive committee, which met in Italy in July, asked that "procedures for discernment" be developed and presented in Accra. The committee saw the need to introduce this shift step by step and so recommended that traditional voting procedures be preserved.

Below, Jill Tabart, a resource person sent by the Uniting Church in Australia to assist the executive committee, tells why and how her church made the shift to consensus model decision-making. Here , read about the steps the Alliance will take in Accra.

What does decision-making really mean in the life of the Christian community?

In 1988, the national assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia (UCA) decided to amend its standing orders and rules of debate. The committee that was asked to draft the changes found this required more than tinkering around the edges of an out-of-date model. The Assembly standing committee agreed that a more sweeping approach was required - and the journey of a lifetime began!

For me, that journey culminated at the national assembly in 1994, when - as president for the following triennium - I had the responsibility of chairing the assembly (c 250 members) using the new consensus procedures for the first time. Some present (particularly those more timid or unaccustomed to complex procedural ploys) anticipated the fresh approach with eagerness. But there was also some suspicion and resentment on the part of a few (mostly male and ordained) who had often used their familiarity with the old system to ensure their point of view won. I'm delighted to say that graciousness prevailed. Some of these experienced participants afterwards said, "We could never have dealt with the divisive issues [about ministry and ordination] under the old system without coming out of this assembly as a divided church - consensus procedures have made it possible."

Of course we didn't just go cold into that assembly. Six years of preparatory work were informed by the experience of other churches within and beyond Australia where less formal procedures are used. We drew on the wisdom of our own indigenous Aborigines and of the Aotearoa New Zealand Maori, whose cultural practice is of waiting for unity to develop before an issue is resolved. And when the nearly completed work was in its final draft, the procedures were tested with the assembly standing committee and several presbyteries over many months prior to the 1994 assembly. Only then did we circulate the Manual for Meetings. And the assembly week of worship and work commenced with an introduction including role-plays to highlight the differences between the old and the new.

I've seen some remarkable evidence of openness to the guidance of the Spirit in meetings since then - in the big national and state councils as much as in small local meetings where taking account of all points of view is more likely to occur naturally. It's nothing short of miraculous to see a whole council's understanding of a way forward swing around when a small tentative insight is quietly offered by the one last person unable to agree with the majority!

Avoiding polarization

The national assembly in 1997 was when the polarizing issue of homosexual leadership was agonizingly considered, with demarcation lines apparently drawn well before the assembly convened. But consensus procedures enabled us to listen to each other and for the voice of the Spirit, as moving testimonies were offered in the plenary sessions and small groups agonized as they prayed together for discernment. In the end, there was unanimity. We reached consensus that the church could affirm a number of basic principles about sexuality and human relationships; and that it was prepared to live with divergent points of view about other issues, where no single directive could be offered to the church at that time as God's discerned will for the way forward.

The practice of breaking down a topic to the fundamental issues underlying diverse opinions is a helpful way of making progress. Often there is much that can be affirmed with confidence out of our one allegiance to Jesus Christ; and then the sticking points may more readily be clarified and considered within that recognition of common ground.

Review

After six years of using consensus decision-making procedures, a review was undertaken to determine whether there were learnings we might helpfully incorporate into a revision of the Manual for Meetings. I chaired that review. Through reflections from a wide selection of those who had used the procedures in very diverse situations, we were able to streamline the guidelines and simplify the text. In 2000, the national assembly adopted the revision and agreed that these procedures would now be the norm for all church councils - national, state, regional and local.

Positive outcomes

I hold the introduction of consensus procedures for decision-making as the highlight of my three-year term as national president of the UCA.

Those who have benefited significantly from the change include the small voices so often overlooked in the past: lay women, youth, newcomers to council membership, those for whom English is not their main language, indigenous members.

The church has been enriched by more patient openness to hear what the Spirit is saying and by more respectful valuing of the insights of all.

Worship is integral to our work and building community is not just an optional extra. There's an expectation that every meeting will set aside at least 20% of its time for worship and community-building, as well as using opportunities to pause for reflection and prayer while an issue is being considered. A more worshipful atmosphere is the norm in our business meetings.

Perhaps fewer issues (but more carefully prioritized ones) can be considered in depth in a meeting with a limited timespan, but greater ownership of decisions is an important outcome of this intentional participation of every member in seeking to discern God's will for the church.

Challenges

Presenting a proposal needs thorough preparation. For an issue to be validly explored, differing points of view must to be thoroughly researched and competently presented in the information-sharing session.

Limited time can be a problem. When members gather over great distances and for a set period, it may not be possible to continue the deliberation and waiting for discernment as long as this may need. A crowded agenda does not encourage careful participatory discernment.

Because small group work is integral to the effective participation of all members, venues need to be selected either with space sufficient for meeting in table groups throughout plenary sessions or with ready access to other rooms for groups to reconvene at specific times. In large meetings, feedback from small group work is often time-consuming and careful thought must be given to ways of streamlining that essential aspect.

Much is expected of the person chairing, requiring alertness to the way people are responding to a particular point of view and trying to crystallize what is starting to emerge as the collective discernment of God's will. It is exciting to be part of when it is working well! But some inexperienced chairs find themselves trapped in an apparent impasse, and need guidance in the processes to persevere through to a consensus outcome. There is need for rigorous, intentional, ongoing training of those who chair.

The provision in our Manual for moving, on occasions, to formal procedures is sometimes used too readily, instead of persevering in seeking a way forward by consensus.

There is a risk that radical debate may be muffled, supposedly in the interests of time and out of a shortsighted anxiety to reach a harmonious conclusion. Sometimes the resultant "lowest common denominator" outcome has left feelings of disquiet and dissatisfaction. It is essential that all aspects of an issue be aired fully. Consensus is not intended to mean compromise, but an informed and genuine working through with integrity and vigour to a way forward with which all can live.

But the biggest challenge is in the attitudinal shift needed from expecting that one point of view on a particular issue will "win", triumphing over those who obviously must "lose". Unity is a key characteristic of the body of Christ; our desire to seek God's will as a community must be stronger than our personal passion for a particular position prevailing. Openness to hearing the Spirit speaking through other voices with ideas opposed to one's own can actually transform the whole ambience of a meeting!

I have presided over councils of the UCA at every level of the church's governance and served as president of one of our state councils of churches. I knew and used with confidence the complex formal majority procedures that were our previous standing orders and rules of debate. In many church meetings over the past 50 years, I have revelled in the deft application of formal procedures to achieve a predetermined outcome. I have known again and again the thrill of winning, as powerful an adrenaline rush as in any sport - but it was just a game, I now realize. I look back with some shame, as I recognize my shallow disregard for the tentative voices of others, whom I have had little compunction in putting down to achieve my goals.

With the consensus decision-making procedures we now employ, we all participate with a sense of openness to the unexpected discoveries that God may have in store, as we engage in careful discernment of God's will through prayer, Bible study, and the vigorous participation of our colleagues in the community of faith.

Dr Jill Tabart, Uniting Church in Australia