Skip to content

Robert’s Rules of Order: Meet Political Worship

October 9, 2012

In this post I want to think about the extent to which parliamentary procedure is an appropriate guide for churchly deliberation. To be more specific, I want to highlight and articulate some theological problems with Robert’s Rules of Order, which I will do by bringing it into contrastive dialogue with Bernd Wannenwetsch’s Political Worship.

For years I was very sceptical of Robert’s Rules of Order and didn’t bother to learn them. This kept me more or less on the sidelines of denominational decision-making processes. In advance of my denomination’s General Assembly this summer, however, I took it upon myself to learn the Rules–and, I must admit, I found myself surprised and hopeful because of their relative usefulness. I was ready to engage the process and give it a chance to help us deliberate wisely and faithfully as a movement of churches. But it did not go very well. I say this despite my pleasure at our landmark 2/3 majority vote to ordain women: The parliamentary process was a deliberative fiasco and an ecclesiological disappointment. It gives me no satisfaction to say this and as a full participant I share the responsibility: But there were highly contentious issues on the table and, just when we needed graceful procedures, the Rules were not up to the task.

I do not mean to blame everything on the Rules, but sometimes something has to be bent to the point of breaking before you confront its flaws, and when that happens you have to be ready to do some institutional soul-searching. The parliamentary inadquacies I wish to highlight rally around two main clusters of concern, and the first is this:

Robert’s Rules of Order assumes discord, favours the will and the voice of the majority, and does not give adequate attention to the goal of consensus.

A friend of mine recently pointed out to me that Robert’s Rules presume division. He’s right. They presume this by working everything out in a representative flow of appeals that culminate in, not a selection, but an election. Consensus is a happy bonus; but the system is built around persuading a majority.

Instead of setting up a system of back-and-forth debate revolving around theologically representative statements, parliamentary process forces us into a rapid succession of alternating appeals as loosely related to one another as the persons whose views they represent. In all of this the opportunity for clarification, direct response and, yes, even reconciliation is easily lost in the sea of one-shot efforts at mass-persuasion.

Now, obviously a voting system may often be a practical necessity (and if you submit yourself to that system and you end up losing a minority vote, you have no right to cry foul).  My point is not to negate democracy altogether, but to highlight what we lose when we let drift to the presumptions of such a system. Thus, in contrast with this construction, note the following excerpts from Bernd Wannenwetsch’s Political Worship. These come on the heels of an in-depth consideration of the socio-political dimensions of Christian life and worship.

“In processes of decision in Church politics, unanimity has not always, will not always, and cannot always be attained; yet it is this which the Church as ‘body’ is in duty bound to strive for… This obligation to arrive at a consensus may certainly be incorporated in democratically constituted ways of striving for agreement, but it must also involve a critical reserve towards a complete take-over of the parliamentary democratic principle in the Church. In the parliamentary model, the formation of political opinion is often not much more than the discursive reflection of existing majorities” (299).

As a church, Wannenwetsch argues, we have to think about “what it means to avoid breaking off prematurely the joint struggle for consensus. In this connection we shall have to assess the part played by forgiveness, since this frees action from the vicious cycle of mere reaction, and makes it possible for people to make a fresh start with each other” (281).

Whatever functional procedures need to be utilized in order to have an efficient meeting, our deliberative process should primarily reflect that we are a community operating from faith in the reconciling God. This brings us to the second cluster of concerns:

Robert’s Rules of Order favours efficiency over patient deliberation; powers of persuasion over charity and clarity; and constituency-representation over theological representation.

Here I am burrowing further into the holes already found. Again, consider these evocative lines from Bernd Wannenwetsch:

“The loss of the ability to listen is often lamented today, but where should this ability be recovered?” (284). “It is one of the dilemmas of politics in our time that it is often unable to get beyond the level of mere reaction…. [T]he hermeneutics of suspicion is not a creation out of nothing. It is the result of countless processes of assimilating experiences of abused trust. This means that practically speaking this hermeneutics can only be replaced through the forgiveness of ‘those who trespass against us’…. The forgiveness received which people experience in worship then makes it possible for them to be led out of the vicious circle of mere reaction” (307-308). 

I don’t know about other denominational Assemblies, but each time we gather for ours it seems like there is an increasing tension between the time and energy set aside for “worship” and the time and energy set aside for “business”. I’m sure the organizers feel the pressure to see these things in competition. But here are the questions I think need raising: Shouldn’t the deliberative process of the church  flow out of (and into) the worship of the Body of Christ? More specifically, shouldn’t the Communion Table of the Lord and the Hearing of the Word of God be the impetus for the meetings that follow, informing not only their attitude but their content?

This isn’t about doing away with the rules, it is about checking our Rules against the political content of Christian worship; the social fabric of Christian life and community. As Wannenwetsch explains:

“[In worship] the strong and weak see themselves as all equally in need of the Word… Peaceable hearing is sensitive to soft voices. Attuned through worship, the discourse will be truly political … ‘through the Word, not through force’. The form it takes is, to use a grammatical metaphor, the continuous form of trust in the power of the Word… [P]eople who are engaged in a dispute with one another can worship together. And here stress is not on the fact that these people can nevertheless worship together; the emphasis is precisely reversed: as long as people can worship together, they can dispute freely with each other” (305).

I find this ecclesiastical vision as inspiring as it is challenging. At the very least it raises the question: If the Rules are not held in check by greater commitments, what is there to lead us toward a back-and-forth debate (complete with clarifications and rebuttals) carried out in the trust that we are one Church with one faith and one Lord?

Concluding Reflections

With my critique of Robert’s Rules I do not mean to imply that they are unsalvageable. They remain a relatively usable tool with wisdom for leading efficient meetings. However, if we fail to give due attention to the ecclesiological dynamics that are at the heart of a church movement then we may forgo aspects of our Christianity at the altar of efficiency or the comfort of the majority. We may surrender too quickly to the presumption of discord and operate too readily from something other than the ministry of reconciliation.

In short, with the way Robert’s Rules of Order are structured, I think it all too easy for a church assembly to practise something other than faith-seeking-understanding together under the guidance of the Spirit and the authority of the living Word.

Advertisements
3 Comments leave one →
  1. Ron Erickson permalink
    October 10, 2012 1:21 am

    Thanks Jon, for your thought provoking evaluation of this significant aspect of church life when assembled for the purpose of listening to God and to each other as they seek his leading as worshippers.

  2. October 11, 2012 4:28 am

    Brilliant critique, friend. But what is the alternative? I am in a serious congregational discernment (about denominational issues) in a congregation of about 600 people. I am struggling with how 600 people can make a decision together? We are having lots of conversation and plenty of listening. Our leaders are studying God’s word, writing biblically-based statements on both sides of the arguments, editing them together, and sharing them. I pray that we grow better at listening and loving in the process. I pray that we grow more patient (while some people are already just walking away). But I don’t know how to reach anything like consensus, or how long to wait for it before simply taking a vote. Truly, I think unity in the congregation will take a miracle–and praise God, I do believe in miracles!

  3. June 13, 2014 4:10 pm

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am very much troubled by this attempt to somehow draw some sort of parallel of the results of a business meeting and whatever it was that the gentleman imagined that the Bible taught. I remind the gentleman that Robert’s Rules of Order are not trying to save anyone’s soul, and none of the sixty-six books of the Bible are trying to present sophisticated organizational techniques.

    What I think the gentleman should have done is to carefully describe the events to which he objected to at this meeting he called a “fiasco” and posted a question about these proceedings at http://www.robertsrules.com, the preeminent web site that deals with such issues, and allow the experts in this field, including the authors, to consider his posting and offer their suggestions.

    Problems of all sorts are presented at this site and the experts offer any number of techniques that result in relief. It sometimes happens that events that normally are disallowed by the rules slip past the presiding officer and if no timely Point Of Order is raised then what happened becomes a non-event. The meeting participants bear a responsibility in this regard: If they remain silent at a breach of the rules then they have no reason to criticize until they raise the Point Of Order.

    In the meantime, read the article at:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V_M4owXmu8BxbWI37orX0K4XEnKxCwoBtca0tMsozWo/edit?pli=1

    and take a look at the destructive effects of trying to take business meetings toward consensus and everything nasty that flows from it, a movement which is what the gentleman is advocating. Had the gentleman actually read Robert’s Rules of Order he would have seen the author’s recount of the English Parliament’s movement away from consensus and toward formal debating structures, precisely because of the ill effects.

    If the gentleman continues down this road the only result is the evisceration of the organizations to which he is a member and the destruction of their efficacy. I doubt seriously that that is the result he is looking for.

    Regards,
    Randyl Kent Plampin

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Shored Fragments

Theology in the Far Country

Resident Theology

Theology in the Far Country

Storied Theology

Telling the story of the story-bound God

KYRIE ELEISON

Theology in the Far Country

The Fire and the Rose

Theology in the Far Country

Inhabitatio Dei

Jealous is the night when the Morning comes

Faith and Theology

Theology in the Far Country

DET

Theology in the Far Country

%d bloggers like this: